The smoking ban in Germany is simply pathetic

And Timmeh's right, smokers are more important to a pub. Maybe one day when non-smokers pull their weight a little more and make up the slack, that will change.

The best customer is king - and at the moment, the best customers in pubs are smokers.

Fuck that. They all know that people smoke in pubs. Nobody I ever hired to work in my pub expressed any surprise at all that smoking was allowed.

And what about little Stuberl which are owned and run by husband and wife teams? Surely then they should remain exempt if they have no external staff...

People used to smoke in pubs. Just get used to it.

Edit: No, nobody should be exempt from the ban. It's there the politicians made their mistake by complicating the legislation rather than simply saying 'no smoking in public places' they added the 'except if...' clause which should be removed ASAP.

I suppose you advocate the elimination of professional sports because of the very real hazard of permanant and serious injury every player has on a football, basketball or hockey team. (Hey, I think this argument was at this exact point 4 months ago, amazing how far everyone has gotten on the issue, ill check back in another quarter)

Sure - but I'm arguing that the law's wrong.

So far all I got in response to my latest statements are:

In response to targetting markets:

A "look at the scoreboard" kind of comment:

Nice going guys...

Sorry I didn't realise you were being serious

So if the owners smoke (or even if they don't, but want to allow it on their premises), they have no staff and the patrons want it, then please justify the banning of smoking in such an establishment.

You've not exactly forwarded the debate much yourself. There's a nice attempt above with the somewhat vacuous 'ban sports because you might get hurt' theory but otherwise you're still back where you were. Perhaps, at some point, you will realise that like many fads, ideas, theories, or even once upon a time socially acceptable standards of behaviour smoking has had its day as something you can do around other people. Expect more legislation to restrict it, not less.

The justification is the law itself: No smoking in pubs and no exception.

It's a building open to the public?

I was at a large restaurant the other day for lunch. We sat on the covered terrace (fully enclosed in thick plastic, a small space with most tables full) to enjoy the sunshine, and were just beginning to eat when a woman plopped down at the table next to us. A friend joined her. This was their conversation:

Woman: do you want one [a cigarette]?
Man: yeah, thanks. Why are you out here?
Woman: oh I know I could still sit inside but I just didn't want to bother everyone with the smoke.
Man: yeah, I know. it's just not very nice to smoke around everybody.

The rest of us within earshot exchanged incredulous looks. They stayed for 2 cigarettes each.

There is no forwarding the debate, you don't respond to the somewhat vacuous analogy (which was just to illustrate that your point that workers in other areas have the freedom to take up jobs that might be hazardous to their health) with anything other than 'thats the way it is going to be from now on so suck it', which isn't an argument, just a smug assertion.

I agree with you, it aint going back, society in general has become more and more safety concious at the cost of choice - the issue is is this particular step a good one, and the problem is your not going to convince anyone to change their mind on it. I think its shitty but fortunately I dont smoke anymore so i'll let the Nazis have their clean air and be thankfull my nicotine vice days were in the halcyon years before everyone got sand in their vagina (or lungs as it were).


I think you don't know what the word justification means. Are you implying all laws are justified?

But you must be able to justify why YOU THINK smoking should be banned from a premises where the owner(s) want to allow it, there are no staff being "forced" to work there and the customers have no compulsion to even be there.

To say "that's the law, no exception" doesn't answer my question and shows a lack of independent thinking on your part.

To say "that's the law, no exception" makes me think someones been in Germany too long

This is in answer to your smoking room question. Saves everyone the time typing it out agan.

But please do try to keep up at the back there.

Strange, if you take your exact words, 'correlation between alcohol consumption and smoking', put them into google and 'take 3 minutes' to look at the first page of results you don't get anything which suggests adults who smoke are likely to drink more. Maybe you want to post some research to back up what you say.

Right, so then allow a smoking room for larger establishments and for small places that have no employees (and hence nobody "forced" to work in a smoky environment) get a general exemption. That solves points 2 and 3 of the argument against.

Point 1 "It doesn't really work" is kinda vague though..

Sorted...

First hit on googling "do smokers drink more"

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2006/08/30/s...-drink-more.htm

They obviously do - or perhaps you can tell us why so many places are so hell bent on still allowing smoking and trying all sorts of loopholes...

lilplatinum, your comparison of the hazards of smoking to the hazards of professional sports is absurd. Have a celebrity encourage children to smoke will lead to a high proportion of those children becoming ill. Have a sportsman encourage children to get off the sofa, put down the X-box and run around the park for a bit will make most of those children more healthy. Both celebrities and sportsmen act as role models for children and what they do the kids will follow. I'm sorry if I sounded smug above but the comparison is useless as a way of forwarding your argument.

Hazza - asking why X, Y or Z scenario should or shouldn't be covered by a piece of legislation is hardly relevant. Perhaps your mon-n-pop bar isn't the main target of the law but why should they have different conditions from other bars? What purpose would it serve? Why not treat everyone the same?

Because it's just another loophole that will be exploited: Congratulations waiter, you are now an "owner", here's your 1 euro share of the business... everyone's an owner, weeee!

I'd imagine such establishments are, despite the "completely voluntary" nature of your hypothetical, subject to normal business rules as well... fire codes, health and safety, etc...

1. They have different conditions to places that have employees as they aren't "forcing" anyone to be in a smoky environment.
2. It would allow them to run a business as they see fit and probably make more money and have less noise complaints.
3. Because not every situation is the same and it would really not be difficult to exempt any business with no employees.

But you still haven't really answered the question as to why this exemption should not stand...

You could limit the number of owners to 2 or 3 and specify that everyone have at least a 30% share.

Wanna throw another one at me?

Won't that involve a change in legislation?

What does being a role model have to do with workplace safety??? We were talking about preventing employees from a dangerous occupation, or is there now a role model exemption grandfathered in?

How about this, my father fished for king crab during winter in the bearing strait of alaska back in the day with hired help on his boat. This is the most dangerous profession in the US. (300 deaths per 100,000) Should it be forbidden, or is catching overpriced worth the risk to both the king crabber and his employees? Its a job that is in no way necessary for society and could be done away with at the fisherman's financial expense only, forcing him in his crew to catch safer fish to ensure his deckhands (who signed on for the job knowing the dangers) safety?

Yeah, legislation can be changed, it just shouldn't be done in the retarded way it has so far.

My god you're right, let's do away with all safety regulations, if you want the job you have to accept the risks, welcome to the 18th century!

Since the introduction of the smoking ban the attendence figures at the Friday Night Beergarden bashes have virtually doubled. The only thing that has changed is that there is now a smoking ban, so that must mean that the introduction of the smoking ban has encouraged more people to come out on a Friday evening, therefore the smoking ban is a success. Case closed.

So it's my imagination that everyone's looking for loopholes.

There are bars that have become smoking clubs that have more than 1 room. Smoking is still allowed in the entire premises. Surely allowing a smoking room would actually lead those places to keep a non-smoking and a smoking room, rather than using these loopholes to allow people to stink up the entire premises. Plus, wouldn't it be nicer if you didn't have to walk through all the smokers hanging around outside when you enter and leave a bar?

Nobody has yet been able to make a case for banning smoking in places that have no employees...

Was wondering when the hyperbole would come in, obviously when I was bartending in a smoking bar it was similar to a child being forced to mine coal..

The question I was trying to raise is where do we draw the line between allowing employees to accept risks.

And besides, you didn't answer my question - should my father's previous job choice be allowed, it is horridly dangerous and highly unecessary? (Unlike bartending waiting in a smoking club which is possibly dangerous over a long period of time and only moderately unecessary)

They are buildings open to the public and we are not living the eighteenth century. Done.

You have no compulsion to be there if you don't like it though.

Irrelevant.

Oh lilplatinum... The risks of fishing are controlled primarily by the sea which does not respond to legislation much, last time I checked. All employers must take all steps possible to reduce any unnecessary risk to their employees under existing legislation. See where I'm going with this? Should professional sports be banned because someone might get injured? No, in the same way that building sites, factories, or fishing shouldn't be banned because there's risk. Should steps be taken to force everyone to minimise the risk? Yes. The statistical chances of the average person indulging in sport getting injured are far lower than their statistical chances of improving their health therefore sports are good. That's called logic.

Hazza - For my own reasons I want the legislation that prevents smoking in public places to work. Simple legislation works best, and that is legislation without exceptions. I could try to hide behind someone else's reasoning on that but I won't. There's no clear reasoning why an exemption should be granted for particular cases so that's that one done.

The problem is that you'll never find a solution of this type that eveyone finds fair. If places with more than one room are allowed to have a smoking room, places without a separate room will say it's not fair. If one room places under a certain size are are exempt, places just over the threshhold will say it's not fair. The only solution which gives a level playing field, and nobody can say 'It'S not fair, Hazza's pub down the road is exempt and has taken all my smoking customers' is a complete ban, with no exemptions, and to close all the loop holes.

Not at all. I have a friend who has a phobia of snakes. She breaks into panic attacks when she even sees a snake, which is surely bad for her health. Should we close down all reptile parks then? Or perhaps we can take the sensible approach and say that there's no compulsion for her to go there, so she can avoid such a place, whilst others who want to go to there still can.

@lil,
Regarding letting employees take risks:-

I dont think you can. As far as the law is concerned, the protection to workers in a bar is the same as any otehr worker, be that working on a building site or working in sewage treatment.

Its the difference between working in a smoke free bar, not havng to wade thrugh sewage in your trainers and having to do them.

I do not expect to have to take risks with my health as part of my job, I am paid to work, not dice with death :-)

The problem is, if we lived in a normal, common sence society it may be possible to bring in rules and laws that would allow people to say 'I am ok with 'this and that''.

However this is the same as the rules saying employees can 'agree' to work longer hours when needed.

Employers abuse the system and before you know it the longer hours are the normal run of the mill event.

But it's not fair to bars in residential areas. Those in Kultfabrik, who have no neighbours have no problems with people going outside. Those in the middle of Neuhausen do, so it's already unfair. By that argument, the only fair way to act is to allow smoking in all establishments - then everyone's equal.

cb6dba: Can you not work overtime in this country too?

Anyway whatever, the safety nazis have won so oh well. As I said, I quit smoking so its a better environment to me (and Hamburg isn't as hardcore as you backwards southerners yet ) but I can't help but what other 'unecessary' risk is going to be next on the chopping block.

Nah. Still irrelevant. Try again.

How is it irrelevant? You saying irrelevant because you can't think of a proper answer doesn't make it so.

It's crossed my mind too. I don't mind that Hazza is so pissed off about the smoking ban although I understand the principles behind his ire. If, all of a sudden, something I like doing was next then maybe I'd be just as angry. I hope my reasoning would be better though.

Anyway, it's been fun, but got to go home now. Have fun.

@Lil

Yes I can but overtime is not the only application of the law in regards to employee safety. I cannot kill someone by working to many hours.

I can only work a max of 10 hours in a day. If the law was changed to 'an employee can work more if they agree' then before you know it I am being asked at interview 'are you ok with working more than 10 hours if needed?'

Before you know it, anyone not signing the agreement is kicked out during the trail period.

Employers use it as a way to save money.

As I said, this is only 1 aspect of the law in this regard. How would you feel if they relaxed the laws regarding how many hours Lorry drivers/bus/train drivers/pilots can work?

How about poeple working in safety critical systems?

How about a lorry driver working over 10 hours as he signed an agreement to do so when it was needed and causing a pile up.

In all the examples above the type of work isnt important, the fact that it is not allowed for sencible reasons is. The reasons may be different in each case (employee/customer safety etc) but the rules are there to protect people.

So it's all about you then - fuck the bar industry. The "simple" legislation doesn't really appear to be working that well, judging by how many places are still using loopholes in the law.

What would be wrong with saying:

Smoking is banned except for:
1. All places with more than 1 room can make the smaller room a smoking area
2. All places that have no employees can allow smoking
2.a. For the purposes of the law above, a business can have no more than 3 owners, each of which must hold a minimum 25% ownership

That's pretty simple and it still allows non-smokers to go out without having to put up with smoke and keeps workers protected as well.

Hey i'm from the states i've broken 10 hour days at work many times I would say in all of your above examples the time limits on working are not there to protect the worker from fatigue but to protect the public from his worker fatigue.. Thats the difference, the laws are to protect other people from dangers they did not choose, not the employee.

I agree in principle to the fact that if you allow the employee too much leeway they can 'unofficially' require the employee to do things to keep their job. However, I don't see how this applies to the smoking ban - everyone knows up front what they are getting used to. I agree though, too far in either direction is ridiculous, and I am not advocating the hyperbolic analogies of 'lets go back to the industrial revolution workign conditions'.

Anyways, works over, i'm sure this thread or the next one in the series will be here in a few more months next time im bored.

So if the one one room pub in my local Dorf, run by the delightful smoker friendly married couple Hans and Helga, is still full of chainsmokers, where am I supposed to go?

To another pub? Although his example said specifically pubs with more than 1 room.

But how far should I have to travel to reach the next pub?

[Edit] and I think you need to re-read his example.

Is there a constitutional right in Germany for a conveniently located pub? Thats excessive legislation I can get behind. Okay really gone now

Its true that in bars when you went for a job you accpeted there would be smoke.

However in the olden days if you wnet for a job in a mine you accpeted there would be lots of dust.

That changed and now the pub environment has also changed.

I have also done the odd over 10 hour stint, i would not want it to be the norm. Employees are protected by law to ensure theirs and the publics (when applicable) safety.

I think the governemnts have used the health and safety thing to get the bans through as they are not saying 'hey, you cant do it' they are just saying 'employee safety'.

As I said in one of the other threads, the ban was coming in and if the government didnt think they could just ban it they would use another existing law to push it through.

I would prefer to see the government have some spine and ban it altogether as I guess that is what will happen at some point downt he line.

However I expect what will happen is that smokers will be used as a cash cow as the price will just go higher and higher along with whatever anti-smoking, negative-smoker stuff comes along (i expect there to be a raise in both the cost and enforcements of litter fines in and around public transport stops and bars etc).

It's too bad if there's not another bar that caters to your needs, but obviously Hans and Helga have targetted their business at another group. Perhaps you could have a chat with them. If enough others do it and they think that their current policy is causing them to lose business, then maybe they'll ban smoking of their own accord.

Otherwise, there's nothing to stop you opening your own smoke-free place, if you reckon it'll be a big hit...