Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

Oh don't make me giggle. You libertine tree huger are always the same. Preach community - think ego.

I was going to point out that there are costs involved in providing a place for smokers to go.

But on rereading your post, I see that I misread it and now you not only want to ban smoking, you want to ban smokers...

heh, I guess I did write "smokers". I think its quite obvious I meant banning smoking.

Then again, they will turn into the evil people when the world is covered in water in our future post-global warming dystopia, so maybe now is a good time to start

Ah well there we go again... odd that people always seem to get that certain feeling about our friend tfl that he wants to rule other people... how very odd...

damn, my plot to rule the world through increasing the scope of accessibility and worker health laws has been uncovered! Call off the coup!

FYI: my previous reference was to the movie Water World, which I wouldn't recommend watching, but does seem more plausible now based on the recent warm winters and high levels of animosity displayed in this thread.

Not that obvious. You haven't given any ideas of where smokers can go for a cigarette. Give them no place and you're effectively banning them.

Out the front might be OK for the time being, but wait until it gets warm in summer and people decide to hang around outside...

I must say, I'm amazed that the Police/KVR can say they're effectively going to pick and chose which of the laws created by the elected representatives of the people of Bavaria they are going to enforce. Regardless of whether they agree with them or not, or have any personal issues (maybe head of the KVR, or his wife, or his parents, etc smokes), or have issues about the workload/funding or whatever, it's their job to implement/enforce these laws so they should keep their mouths shut (in public at least) get on and do it to the best of their abilities and try to resolve the difficulties as they go. To simple say we're they're not going to enforce it give people the green light to ignore it. You've at least go to make people think that if they break the law there is at least a chance they will be caught and punished. Imagine if the police said 'we're a bit light on numbers, so we're going to concentrate of murders and not going to bother to investige burglaries'. Or if Munich City turned round and said 'the law passed at national level to give solidarity tax to the former east wasn't passed by us directly, those people aren't our responsibility, so fuck them, we're not going to bother with this solidarity tax'. Extreme examples I know, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there is a chain of government decision making and you can't just chose to ignore those decisions made higher up that you don't like.

And again this comes up... honestly, is this some weird Twilight zone episode? Do smokers fly, or are the "effectively banned" from travel?

I'll add... that given the choice between "effectively banning" someone who chooses to smoke, and someone who did not choose to have a medical condition... which group would you choose to ban? Guess what, I'll choose to favor those with the medical condition.

In a way you are right Munichmag. Given the reputation of the KVR, it is surely a clear indicationn of how rubbish the law is that they say they won't enforce it.
As for the democracy of such actions. A certain city politician said that an administration under his leadership wasn't going to allocate scarce resourses to implement a bad state law that had no input to.
And voters last Sunday seemed to be in agreement with Mr Ude.

To be honest I'd be annoyed if good tax payers money is wasted on this. They've wasted enough as it is. Put the resources into solving real problems, real dangers and real threats please!

Why would you get to choose? Shouldn't the choice of who a business is catered to be up to the business owner?

I wasn't saying that I should be the sole person who decides this, just giving you my personal opinion.

However, in the broader sense, my argument still stands. Since a government allows special powers and privileges for a business (liability, taxes, what have you, it depends on the country)... governments also can give conditions for their operation as well. Again, I don't feel that non-discrimination laws are beyond the scope of governments for public businesses like bars. If you argue otherwise, you would have to argue that it is perfectly moral (or at the least, it should be allowed) for a bar to have a "no blacks" policy. This I do not believe... so no, I don't believe business owners should be allowed to have exclusive and final say as to whom their business caters.

P.S. I think I'm done for a while. This thread is too stressful, I think I need a smoke

They don't have to as it's a state law and therefore the police's business. KVR is all about local laws such as parking, dog-shit and clean pub kitchens.

Come on, MT, I think it's a huge leap to say that because Ude was re-elected that the majority of people disagree with the smoking ban. I may not be that up to speed on the local political scene (I'm ashamed to admit I didn't even vote) but was if it was one of the points of his/the SDP election campaign, I doubt it was a big one. The only roadside plackards of theirs I saw which mentioned a specific issued were the anti Transrapid ones. The only party I know of (and again this is just from their roadside 'rauchen erlaubt' plackards) which was campaiging on a pro-smoking policy was the Bayernpartei, and it didn't do them a huge ammount of good.

As for Ude to say he wasn't consulted so he's not going to enforce it sounds a bit naiive. He should know that in a representative democracy not everyone can be involved in every decision, it simply wouldn't work. By necessity some are taken at City level, some at State level, some at national. If Ude demanded and got a say in the smoking decision, then say the Nürnberg OB demanded an input, then before you know it the mayor of every little town in Oberbayern would be wanting to get involved and nothing would ever be achieved. If you go don't that route you may as well have every single decision made by a local referendum, although at least that way we'd probably get the shops open on Sundays in Munich.

And now please get back to kindergarten... un-fuckin-believable...

This is Munich, the original Toytown, I thought we didn't have any of those.

Ude didn't win because of the smoking ban of course.
But the people on the ground in the city administration and in the pub trade were saying this was bad law before it was passed.
And we've been proved right.

The only people whose voices were heard at the time though were the shrill anti smoking lobby.

Helter, I've ignored you because you've consistently demonstrated your inability to follow the conversation. I was asked if it should be the exclusive domain of a business owner to decide who his business caters to, without interference from the government. I gave an example of how I believe it is ok for a government to create laws than interfere with a business owners ability to be the sole decision maker in admittance to their property. What about that is "un-fuckin-believable"?

Please note: I didn't compare non-smokers to blacks, I simply said that arguing the business owners should be the only ones who say what their policies are means you believe such a scenario should be allowed. This is not what I believe, although the point can be argued.

I'm not arguing for a bar to be able to institute a discriminatory policy in that it bans certain sections of the population, but it should be able to aim at a particular market. If they want to aim at the smoking market, then they should be allowed, and they should have a final say on this. It doesn't mean non-smokers are banned though. Bars also don't generally include the elderly as a target market either.

We don't because Bavarians no matter what political colour do not usualy waste money on stupid fashionable laws. Obviously there was an embarassing "diana" moment of ultimate fluffyness. Sanity is returning slowly as will the ability of people to enjoy life in a more european fashion.

Ah, but you are now back-pedaling. I wasn't talking about demographics, or regular non-smokers. I was specifically talking about governments telling bars that they can not allow smokers because it effectivly bars those who have an existing medical condition. In other words, if you argue that governments can not force bars to accommodate these people, you are effectivly arguing for their ability to disallow certain segments of the population. This is something tougher to argue against, which is why, going back to my original point: There are, despite claims to the contrary, rational and logical reasons to support a smoking ban.

The argument and the logic behind it. As you might have noticed I don't answer on your unsubstantial posts anymore, but on stupidity like that I will still keep answering.

You might be able to spell conversation, but that doesn't necessary mean you understand the meaning.

I'm out - going boardin the weekend.

The KVR seem to do nothing about the dog shit, so I suppose it's no suprise they can't be arsed with enforcing the smoking ban either. Maybe it's my cynical view of civil servants, but they seem to be against anything which might cause them more work.

That's a stupid argument. If we took that further, then all normal butchers would have to use Halal meat, or they're excluding Muslims and theme parks wouldn't be allowed to have rides that exclude people under a certain height (normally children) because these groups are then discriminated against.

A pub is a place where people go for their leisure time. If it doesn't meet your requirements, then you really don't have to go there. But if you want to go, and are aware it is under their terms, then you are welcome. That's how a business should be allowed to run.

Hazza, as I said before not all products have to be accessible, but the premises should be.

I also never claimed it has to be done for everyone. I rather pointed out that business owners are not allowed sole authority on deciding who may enter their business. You made a blanket statement, and to disprove it I only need to give one cogent counter example. So I think you can concede I am right: government does have some role in dictating who a business may choose to include and exclude.

Jesus H Christ. You lot keep swearing you're going to end your debate and yet I continue to see this topic populated by the same people perpetuating the same fucking arguments! I don't know whether to be impressed by your persistence or just amazed at the amount of time you all have. Either way, you could make a lot of glue out of all the horses being beaten to death on this topic. I'm all for a good debate but this one has *seriously* been exhausted by everyone currently involved.

And I thought nicotine was addictive. Some of you are just addicted to typing the same crap over and over again. Sheesh.

Pubs aren't allowed to discriminate but they are allowed to market themselves.
A pub with a darkroom isn't going to attract elderly ladies and a pub with Cliff Richard on the juke box isn't going to attract the boys in chains.

There is a demand for non smoking environments in pubs, there is a demand for smoking in pubs.
Arguably some legislation may be needed, but this is bad legislation.

But the premises are open to all. Non-smokers were never banned from pubs

Seconded. The arguments are complete crap anyways.

I agree, there was no signs saying asthmatics are not allowed on the premises, but if you allow smoking, I think it can be said that...

All asthmatics I know still go to the pub...

I have athsma and on one level I was glad when smoking briefly stopped.
I say briefly becasue the law doesn't effectively exist, four out of five of my regular haunts are now smokers clubs.
I pass 10 pubs to get to my local, five of them are smokers clubs.

Maybe it is is different else where but round here the IS no law effectively becasue the law is rubbish.

You just can't help yourselves, can you, tfl and Hazza? I think we should ban you from Toytown until you can learn to control your addiction. Or make you post in a separate subforum away from the rest of the non-addicted TT population so you don't taint the forum and annoy the hell out of everyone else. I'm allergic to second-hand hardheadedness.

I'm with gg on this one, please let the thread die!!!

So don't read the thread...

I read through extra lite and I can't avoid it!!!

I'm actually done. I think I've clearly expressed how I feel about the nuances of government involvement in the private sector.

However, no one is forcing you to read the thread.

I couldn't find a 'shrill voice' smiley, but from what 've seen (and I obviously all I have to go is my observations), but I me it seems to be working fine. Everywhere I've been since the ban came in has been as full as it always was, in fact in my local a couple of weeks ago we had to sit at the bar as it was so full, and we've never had to do that before. People go outside for a smoke, and as I've been coming and going from places it's doesn't seem at though there is excessive noise from people smoking outside. At times it almost seems as though they're deliberately being quieter as people do seem to be talking quietly. Maybe the publicity has made people aware of the fact that if they're standing around outside making lots of noice it will disturb the neighbours. Places that want to can become smoking clubs, so owners have this choice if they want and smokers have somewhere to go if they don't want to go outside and smoke. Oh, and I've not smelt stale beer, BO, farts or the toilets anywhere. Society hasn't broken down, life is going on as normal, and people still seem to be able to go out and have a good time.

Naahhhh, it's only up to No 8 on the list, plenty of legs in it yet.

Another forum xtra lite reader here. And when I'm not using xtra lite, it's just annoying to see the same bloody topic constantly at the top of the View New Posts list. Seriously, anything with 45 fucking pages has taken up more than enough forum time and space. I'd like to see people contributing or starting new debates rather than endlessly discussing the same one. I realise my opinion doesn't matter much, but FWIW all the folk posting here are smart and interesting and I'd just rather see them making contributions elsewhere.

And with that I conclude my own extension to this topic's incredible lifespan.

Really? I've never read extra lite, before. But I'd be taking my complaint up with Editor Bob, to change it so you don't have to read everything.

unsubscribe

You should give it a go Hazza, its like ciggies with less tar.

Yeah, coz the law isn't enforced properly.

I just looked at xtra lite

Wow, why would you try to read it like that?

It doesn't standout so much in an office with colleagues that can see your screen.

would that be a passive smoking thread death then...

The existence of so many "smoking clubs" is proof that the law is not "working fine" as they were not envisaged by the legislation and only exist to avoid it.

A novel and new point Monkstown, one which has never been raised and to which I've never responded, please wait while I compose a reply...



have a nice weekend everyone, I'm off in search of starkbier.