Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

I call bullshit on that one, MT. Non-smokers are constantly stuffing their faces and drinking either when they spend an evening at a pub or restaurant. I often sit at a table for many, many minutes without a drink. Whether you are at the table not consuming or outside sucking a fag ( ) it irrelevant.

I think the question of whether non-smokers or smokers drink more is irrelevant. The answer can quite clearly be found in MT's earlier post: smoker clubs are drawing patrons away.

These give an unfair advantage to some businesses because they are violating (the spirit of) the law. Close this loophole, and everyone will be competing again on a level playing field. This patchwork quilt approach of compliance and non-compliance is why it isn't working... and its a good example of why I prefer the total ban instead of allowing certain exceptions and special treatment, which would naturally give some businesses an advantage over others.

As far as I'm concerned it's working fine. I'm about the heaviest smoker I know and I've not had a problem anywhere. When I want to smoke I simply go to wherever it's allowed at that location. I'm only a member of one smoking club (The Green Room) and that was by accident rather than design. I still go out just as much and still frequent the same bars and restaurants I always have.

To close the loophole on smoking clubs will mean new legislation and the chances of that happening are?

A TOTAL ban, as in England would mean the end of many small pubs that are now smokers clubs.
Becasue they have only become smokers clubs, to try and protect their trade.

But it's not an unlevel playing field because any or all bars are able to become smoking clubs without any problems.

And wouldn't you agree that if smoking clubs are drawing patrons away, it's an obvious sign that the majority of customers want smoking allowed in the places they frequent? So the majority of patrons want smoking allowed, the bar owners are in a position that they can decide it for themselves anyway, regardless of legislation - so tell us again why this law exists?

to annoy you, and get everyone`s knickers in a knot on TT.

Clearly thats the case. Hard core smokers are going to Smoking clubs.. therefore this must mean that the Majority of all Patrons what smoking allowed

If it was only hard-core smokers that wanted smoking allowed, why such a big move towards smoking clubs then?

The majority of smokers may want it, however the majority of patrons are not smokers. The majority of smokers have accepted it and are coping quite well. The law was badly introduced, no change there, and needs changing so that everywhere is non smoking. It was introduced because most people want it.

We’ve been over this countless times, I honestly have no interest in going over it again. Just because the smoking clubs see increased business at the expense of their non-smoking competition does not require that a majority of their customers do not want the ban.

To be clear, that could very well be the case, but one does not mathematically imply the other….

Picture 20 bars, 10 is a smokers club. The 10 loose 5% of the patrons who really want to smoke, whereas the smokers clubs gain those customers, and probably keep existing customers for whom it isn’t a deciding factor.

As to why the law is needed at all, I’ve been very consistent and very clear, so you don’t need to ask: The free market does a very poor job of dealing with externalized costs. Specifically worker and customer health regulation. Worker health is an especially pertinent example in this case, since workers in restaurants and bars tend to be younger, whereas the health expenses incurred from smoke exposure are paid later in life… meaning that bars and restaurants gain increased revenue while placing the costs on society or other businesses.

In the end, it is two extremely vocal minorities on each extreme, with a large swath of people in the center who really don’t care too much one way or the other. However, it is a difficult position for the pro-smokers to defend because they are essentially arguing for their right to expose other people to a health hazard simply because they don’t want to stand outside

P.S. Barring one or two replies, I'm not going to contribute too much more today, this horse is a dead beaten pulp

80% of the bars I go to are smokers clubs - and I'm a non smoker.

If there was a "silent majority" amongst pub goers that wanted the ban, or if there was a section of potential pub goers who were excluded becasue of smoking
why are we now taking EUR 1500 a month less after becoming a non smoking venue?

Some pubs have, against their will in some cases, HAD to become smoking clubs or their trade would dropped to the extent they would have had to close.

Was there a referendum held on the subject that I'm unaware of? Or how do you come to this conclusion?

The only reason I keep posting is so that if MTs and Hazzas posts are read by somebody who has influence over the law, you never know they might be, and they get the impression that everybody agrees with them and uses that info to influence the law makers, to our detriment.

I wouldn't say most people want it. I'd say it was introduced because "it's the right thing to do" and most people don't really care one way or the other.

@Allershausen... a noble quest, but I think you give this microcosm too much credit... I just post because I'm a pedantic asshole

I just want to clarify that my "tip" wasn't directed at any particular establishment. Just a general opinion from a customer.

Apparantly some of you are in the biz. If your place is clean and fresh, plz tell me the name of it and where it is located. Organize a weekly meet up there. Create new possibilities for new business.

The non-smoking movement is still in its infancy here. Things will settle as the laws and the people grow up.

It would be nice to see this energy go toward something big. (Excluding those whose livlihood is affected, of course)

Most of the world, developed and undeveloped, has moved on from this issue.

Everytime Germany backtracks from the non-smoking stance, the world laughs.

FF

Let's all hug each other and have a chai...

Certain people still didn't read the actual law and therefore still don't get the intention of this law (but only stick to the hesaid/shesaid thingie), some others know from their own experience of going out how much revenue a pub has (would love to be able to do that! wouldn't need that bloody till anymore!) and others seem to be coming from some planet, but certainly not earth... interesting.

Popcorn anyone?

Pubs that are staying non smoking will have to find ways to make up for their loss of trade.
We are wracking our brains on the issue.

But having to do that exposes the fact that the argument we heard before the ban:
"people would go to pubs if they weren't so smoky", to be untrue.

Most of the world, developed and undeveloped, has moved on from this issue.

Everytime Germany backtracks from the non-smoking stance, the world laughs.

Nail hit on the head...get on with life smoking bans are here to stay worldwide. In 5 years or so people in Bayern wont remember "smokers clubs"

Baring new legislation, which I can't see on the cards, the demise of smoking clubs would be prompted by social change as fewer and few people smoke.
If that trend is happening anyway and non smoking venues were becoming more available, why the need for ham fisted legislation?

There was no need for ham fisted legislation, it should have been a total ban, no exceptions, like every where else. The answer now is not to dump the current law, but to correct it. Oh and to sack the civil servants who drew it up.

Smoking is banned in public places and and smoking clubs aren't public.
Banning smoking in those private places might well be an infringement of the constitutional "Recht aud Rausch".

Approaching it from the Irish perspective of protection of employees would require federal legislation and the reason there is such a patchwork in Germany is that the federal government wouldn't touch the issue for fear of alienating voters. Even with federal legislation protecting employees there might still be a loophole for one roomed tiny pubs that tend not to have any.

The problem is that there are still employee's in smoking clubs getting lung cancer as we speak just because they want to work rather than sit on the dole.

In the majority smoking clubs I frequent there are either no staff or the staff smoke.

Yes, there are in some cases, but not in the majority, workers who don't smoke being exposed to it.
Tackling that would mean federal legislation which the federal government chickened out of.

And a blanket ban based on employment law would have to be done in the knowledge that it would ruin many smaller inner city pubs -
as is evidenced by them clutching at the straw of becoming "smoking clubs".