Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

Veering off topic here but the CSU politicians are rubbing their hands and clapping each other on the back because they have this highly controversial issue to blame their abonimable election results on instead of facing the fact that the voters consider the party rotten to the core, do not want the Transrapid and acutually don't mind living with foreigners in God's their own country.

Sarabyrd, agree with you 100% on that! Aloows "Septic Schmidt" to wash his hands.

Sarabyrd, I agree that there are other issues, perhaps Bavarians are even getting fed up with the CSU monopoly, at least in the cities, not so much in rural regions. However, it is the way that non-smoker protection is handled – the inflexibility, disrespect of people's customs – that annoys people.

More people die from car accidents than passive smoking in Bavaria. I totaly agree this stupid law was doomed from the start and really don't understand how the CSU could have ever considered it a reasonable and fair law which would be accepted by anyone who is in sync with the Bavarian way of life. I personaly voted CSU though after the Kunt sorry Koch debacle it wasn't as an easy thing to do but our local CSU guy busts his gut for the gemeinde so its only fair he won.

I also consider this silly patronising and reactionary non-smoking law so PC I'm thinking of starting to smoke a pipe again in protest. In fact any clever politician could galvanise the voters from all spectrums against this silly thing.

gids, I'm another non-smoker who has had a protest fag*.
And I don't mean MonksTown.

The law wasn't thought through and shouldn't work for that reason alone.

*as well as feeling a bit daft for having done so, I did also feel very old and silly - is this my last rebellious act, smoking a Marlboro in a pub? Tragic really.

In Munich the people haven't supported the CSU as long as I have lived here.
We had the first Rot-Grün coalition in Germany and 18 years later it is still going strong.
We are an island of Glückseligkeit. Bavaria is that thing outside the A99.

Don't do that, it would take the protest too far. It's more about the principle.

<feels rejected by Katrina>

*waves knee-length black leather boot clad leg at MonksTown*

Listen Mr. Libertine... do you want to write a letter to a person dying of lung cancer explaining how your desire to smoke a pipe is somehow more important than their life? Until you do so, I propose you "shut the hell up" and "accept authority"

Ok, tongue firmly in cheek there, but I could help but note the irony of this protest coming from someone who thinks police should be able to randomly beat people in the streets for "being cheeky" in order to "bring back the fear of authority"

And the slaughter on Bavaria's roads every weekend as younguns drive home pissed or stoned from rural nightclubs.
We're all gonna go sometime innit.

Dear God Monkstown, are you saying there is non-compliance with drunk driving laws? What ever should we do? Naturally the laws must be repealed (we've been down this boring road before, let's not start)

Cool - emotive hysteria.

The first thing I thought of when I read that was those anti-abortionists who wave aborted fetuses at people trying to enter clinics...

@ Hazza... read the link for the back story, it is more of a semi-public joke between gideon and myself.

(although I would have thought the winky face and phrase "tongue firmly in cheek" would have been a not-so-subtle tipoff)

If I can find someone dying of supposed passive smoking I would. Fact is that your looking at max 300 in Germany with possibly statisticly proven cause under 70. I emphasise possibly statisticly. But dont let that get in the way of you worying about your hand knitted multi coloured jumper smelling after a night out. I am all for laws based on fact not a bunch of whinny libertines like yourself who really should be randomly beaten on a daily basis or at least sent to a labor camp making kunstschnee for us better class of people to ski on. ;-)

This law is based on sand and damadging to business and the integration of society as a whole.

Oh and I wasnt proposing random beatings. Just criminals. And Americans not from Texas.

is it friday?

The difference is that the drink driving laws didn't get introduced in such a haphazard, retarded way.

There is a serious issue in rural Bavaria with younguns in car accidents when stone cold sober.

It's quite simply bad law.
When even the head of the KVR is saying the same thing as Hazza and myself have been saying for months then maybe we have a point...

What? I agree with the KVR boss?

The law may not be the most perfect piece of legislation, but for parliament to undermine their own law by allowing smoking at Oktoberfest beggars belief. Covering up one mistake with an even bigger one is NOT the way forward.

In the fuss and palaver over Oktoberfest, people forget that there are hundreds of Volksfeste throughout Bavaria every year, each of which will presumably still have to enforce the smoking ban. If they can do it, there is no reason Oktoberfest can't. The Wies'n tents are no larger than anywhere else. The fact is that the tent owners are attempting to stop this law from being implemented by claiming it's not possible, and I can not believe that the politicians are letting them get away with it.

Your kidding right?

How does one undermine a law which was unworkable to begin with?

So you're saying that drink driving laws were introduced in a retarded way?

If there had been serious participatory debate on the legislation we would have got a decent law on establishing non smoking in liscensed premises.
And part of the blame does indeed lie with the official representivies of the pub trade.

Sorry, maybe they were introduced well in your home country, but I grew up watching how it was done in the various states of the US (there is no US drunk driving law, there are 50 different sets of laws), and they have changed over the last 40-50 years.

I think alot of the blame is down to the reactionary speed at which it was rushed through. I was amazed that such an non-issue law should have been boxed through so quickly in some lemming like rush. Considering that the debates before on shopping times or crucifixes or headscarves and transrapids seemed to have gone on for ever, something like this was odd.

I agree, it came in too quickly. It didn't give the conservative-minded Bavarians sufficient time to adjust to the idea. Introducing the ban in the middle of winter was also completely daft.

In the UK, there was an 18-month gap between the law being passed and introduced, and it came into effect in June. Here there was an 18-day gap, if that, and they brought it in on a day where the nighttime temperature was -10°C.

Exactly, Gideon.

If the law was OK - as a lot of people appear to be claiming here, then the KVR wouldn't be making making any negative noises about it, the newspapers wouldn't be reporting it, pubs and bars wouldn't be looking to circumvent it with any loophole they can possible try and we wouldn't be talking about it here.

Whether you agree with the principle of the law or not, you can't say that it's a good piece of legislation.

Oh and is it too early to say "told you so" yet?

It's a terrible piece of legisation. The fact that hundreds of bars - and the first disco - are activley using the loop holes provided to retain their customers ability to enjoy their evening shows just how bad it is. The whole debate though isn't based on any rational argument so that's hardly suprising.

I've consistently supplied rational arguments why a total smoking ban falls well within the mandate of government. Just because people here pretend they don't exist, and choose to parrot the same old crap, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

In summary, the three strongest arguments for a total smoking ban are:

1) It falls within the scope of existing worker protection laws. In other words, it doesn't violate a business owners property rights any more than disallowing other activities detrimental to worker health, while still allowing them to sell the product for their industry (alcohol)

2) Smoking in bars effectively bars a class of people with certain medical conditions. When it is a contest between making a public space accessible to those with medical conditions versus a minor inconvenience to other people... typically laws favor those with the medical condition.

3) Governments are allow to regulate private businesses in order to protect customer health. This is already done in restaurants, and with occupancy limits for fire codes. The latter most notably cuts down on profits, even though people are quite able to decide for themselves if they want to put themselves at risk.

Those are the two strongest cases for a total ban. It is no secret I'm a big fan of the total ban, as I think watering it down with exceptions effectively guts the law. People keep saying that drunk driving laws were not passed in "a retarded way"... but were there exceptions and trial periods I was unaware of? Is there an exception for Oktoberfest and owners of cars below a certain size? No, its a total ban.

Just like any law, people will want to get around it. Just like tax laws, people try to find loopholes. The fact that people find loopholes and exploit them has no bearing on this law, because it happens with every law. To suggest otherwise would imply that people finding loopholes in the tax code means we should stop taxing people.

In summary: Perhaps the law was passed quickly, but who cares? It is right, and can be complied with quiet simply. The only problems with the law right now are the fact that the smoking clubs are not being cracked down on, and that the legislature is considering allowing exceptions.

Astute reader might note that my rule #1 allows for smoking in bars still: if the primary purpose of the establishment is for smoking, then you can not ban smoking there without closing the business. So I would have zero problem with "cigar bars" or other establishments as long as they generated their revenue primarily from the sale of tobacco, and put adequate worker protection in place.

This thread is getting really boring though. Complain all you want, as I've consistently said, no far-reaching law gets implemented without bumps, nothing special is happening here. It will sort itself out, and one day members will look back on this thread (if they don't already) as a good example of comical chicken-little hysteria

If smoking clus are not covered by the law, how can they "crack down" on them ?

The legislature can always revise a law, especially where there is "bad law".

These aren't rational arguments, as the risk isn't comparable to the change caused. Passive smoking hasn't been proven beyond statistical possibilities. You'll be saying next bio food is nutritionaly better!

I remember a posting here that private clubs are supposed to have things like member lists, budget, several elected member (accountant, president, etc). I seriously doubt this is being done.

Secondly, by "crack down" I also mean passing new laws forbidding them.

If you have actual scientific studied published in respected journals to back this up, please post them. I'm honestly interested.

Secondly, my point #2 is a rational argument, and is quite obviously provable.

FYI: something doesn't have to be "nutritionally better" in order to be better for you. Milk with bovine growth hormone is identical in a nutritional sense to milk with it... I worry about the "other stuff"... but yes, that is for another thread. Coming from the US "land of frankenbeef," I consider most everything in Germany "bio" by comparison anyway

Since when have occupancy limits been enforced in bars in Germany?

I don't even know what the official capacity of my pub was...

The police have said they won't be doing extra work to enforce the law.
Munich City has said they don't have the resources to enforce a state law they don't feel resposnible for.

As of course was said from the start.

I think there is more chance of Gregor Gysi rimming Angel Ferkel in Karstadt's window on Marienplatz than the Bavarian Landtag tightening the law right now.

@ thefirelane

1) What if it is only a small owner run place? What if the workers sign a statement saying they are willing to take the risk? Many folks are allowed to risk their health in every day jobs, including my husband... why should bar and restaurant workers be treated any differently?

2) So every single restaurant should immediately completely ban the use of all peanut products? And I wouldn't mind if all fish and shellfish got banned since I'm highly allergic, too. Your argument doesn't compute, since a person with a peanut allergy can be dead in minutes, without even knowing what hit them. A smokey bar is easy to spot for a person with asthma. How can we be certain what exactly is in all the food being served? Probably just easier to close all food establishments and make people cook their own all the time only from raw ingredients that they grow themselves.

3) In that case, we should immediately revoke all liquor licenses including Octoberfest, since we know that consuming alcohol is bad for customer health. You can have a good time eating and dancing and chatting without any alcohol.



I'm off for a lovely afternoon with friends, with coffee and cake afterwards. No alcohol at all, and we all shall have a great time!
Cheers!
(and then a glass or two of wine with dinner later!)

I wasn't specifically thinking of pubs, but rather standing room concert venues such as Tonhalle, where there are a fixed number of tickets. I'll admit ignorance about the specifics of fire code legislation in Germany... but my point is more about the role of government in the abstract, and that non-smoking laws are not an unwarranted extension of these powers.

Then you dont understand the legal difference between a verein and a g.gesellschaft.

We've been over this a thousand times, well roughly, non of those things are harmful to other people, someone eating shellfish will not harm you, someone drinking beer will not harm you, you drinking wine will not harm me, someone smoking will harm both of us. This law is the best thing to happen to Bavaria for a long time, badly thought out as it is.

The smell of shellfish makes me throw up. You wouldn't like it if I were right next to you, eh?
Then I get breathing problems... and the trouble really starts.

My point was never that there are no jobs where worker health is put at risk. Rather my point is that governments already have worker health legislation, and I see this as a natural extension. I also added, that health risks are typically banned when their removal does not prevent the functioning of the business. When it would prevent the functioning of the business, the risk is simply mitigated.


Perhaps I was unclear: allowing smoking bans access to a public place Allowing certain foods simply prevents their eating that food... It isn't a fair comparison. Some people are allergic to nearly every food (ask someone with a gluten allergy). The only example I can think of handily comes from the US: you can ban dogs in a restaurant, but still must allow seeing eye dogs. Smoking bans are the same thing (although slightly reversed)...you have to make an exception for medical conditions.


Again, you missed my comments about bans which would shut down a necessary industry (I'm not for them BTW)

Ok... for the nth time... are we bored of this yet? My point was this idea that this idea that "there are no rational arguments" is total crap, and people are just telling it to themselves as a fairy tale. There are plenty of rational arguments. You don't have to agree with them, or think they are important... but you can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't want them to.

Gosh, how about we first make every single bar, restaurant, and cafe in Germany wheelchair accessible... before you go any further with the lame argument of accessibility for everyone to public places.

Certain people speaking out of their PC/whale-saving/non-smoking/radical arses again...

A very wise man once said: "Hängt die Grünen solange es noch Bäume gibt!".

Of course, the difference between that and simply disallowing smoking is quite obvious from a cost and logistics perspective. However, my point was simply to prove that I had a rational argument... which I do.

Now, please... won't someone post more. I really think there is some facet of this we haven't covered in the last 43 pages.

Ah, but that's the major point...it's not a necessary industry. Does anyone HAVE to go to the pub? No. So it's easily avoided if you have asthma.

And that's where your comparison with drink driving falls down. People HAVE to use the roads for their daily business, so if there's an activity on the roads that increases road user's risks, then it has to be legislated against (like drink driving or speeding).

Don't like the risks of associated with going to the pub? Well don't go there. There's plenty of other leisure activities available. Or open your own bar and ban smoking.

It hasn't changed at all has it.
Would have een a lot easier if we had just listenend to Hazza from the beginning wouldn't it.

Open a non smoking bar Hazza?
Surely there was never a trend already occurring to have more and more non smoking venues was there?

@ thefirelane
Ah... I get it now. You aren't in favour of actually making it easier for everyone to access public areas... only one specific group. The rest can just stay home. okey-dokey Silly me thought you meant the general principle of free and equal access.

Since when is it rational? There is a huge cost involved with banning smoking. Now you're just talking out of your arse.

My personal opinion about access laws is that they have to consider the cost involved and realistic abiliity for implimentation. Banning smokers is quite possible, installing an elevator in a 300 year old kneipe isn't.

I am in favor of accessiblity code for building new buildings however... again, I will admit ignorance here, but I suspect these exist.

I think people can make all the comparisons they like between smoking and whatever (cars, alcohol..whatever) they want, its about smoking.

If it is banned in bars etc it is banned in bars. Just as when it wasnt banned in bars it wasnt banned in bars.

If you avoid going into a bar because you cannot smoke, you should give up. If I do not meet friends in a cafe as I cannot have a beer then the beer is more important that the friends.

Any ban beomes the norm in 12 months or so, with smoking people will not notice over the summer as people will be outside anyway. By next winter it will be second nature for most people.

This is the reason we all keep voting for the same promise breaking, people have short memories.

I thought people would have been happier with things going this way than the usual 'lets just increase the tax on it' way of doing things.