The smoking ban in Germany is simply pathetic

Thank goodness for the new legislation then.

Here's hoping they get those loopholes ironed out as quickly as possible.

Unless Hans and Helga go out of business because of it...then nobody's gained anything

The social trend was already clearlyin the direction of no smoking anyway.
We were already running three nights a month as non smoking where I work.

If you want to legislate in Germany on smoking as a workplace issue that requires FEDERAL legilslation which they were scared of doing so pushed it onto the states to use pub liscensing legislation.

All the anti smokers, where the bloody hell where you at the beginning of the year?
We were sold a LIE by the anti smoking lobby that it was smoking that was keeping people out of the boozers.
It patently wasn't.

Are we serious? Over 10 hours a day at work is considered excessive?

Get real peeps, i'll bet well over 50% of this board do in excess of 10 hours a day on a daily basis ffs

Certainly all the contractors.

But if you are on a regular salaried job and not on an hourly rate as a contractor, you aren't going to top 10 hours on a regular basis.
Anyone who does so is either not working efficiently enough or getting ripped off big time by their employer.

i haven't worked less than 10 hours a day in over a month, MT. And I don't this I'm inefficient (neither does my boss).

Aye but on your salary OG!

Seriously though, if the militant anti-smokers want a TOTAL BAN on smoking inside ALL pubs with NO exceptions, then go and ahead and do it.
IF you think you can get a majority in a legislature.
But, you'll need to do so knowing it will mean pub closures.
And for those that survive the smoking / noise conflict that is pr programmed in the law will remain.

I some times think you live in lala land comrade.

MT, that's exactly what i want. And pubs will be closing with or without the smoking ban. People are drinking far less beer than 30 years ago and profit margins on it are slim. Pubs that don't adapt to this trend will die out .

well, i didn't get it by clocking off at 4:30pm every day, now did I?

just whacking off at 4:30?

Sales of beer in the UK are at their lowest now since WW1.
The trend is away from pubs, particuarly ones that sell beer.
Increases in duty and loss leader selling by the likes of Tescos are having an effect.

Some pubs can try and work against the trend, different kind of nights, pastel coloured sofas, skinnyfrappaficcacinos, play area for families with kids etc etc.

But pubs are in decline. Maybe we have to accept an overall decline; but do we have to speed it up by banning smoking, which is a contributry factor?

ban smoking and get people to spend the money they save by not smoking. Drinking only establishments will suffer the most from smoking bans but quite frankly, I couldn't care less. Good establishments offer so much more than just a bar to prop up the same four or five alcoholic chain-smoking regulars every night.

You'd care if you had a drinking only establishment..

Actually, why do you care about what happens in those Stuberl where there are 5 chain smoking regulars at the bar? It's not like you'd ever go and visit them anyway. Why not just let them do what they want?

Excellent, top marks there. Knew you would start to get there in the end.

Just one question, who is this 'we' you speak of this time? The licensing trade, the non-smoking staff of the licensing trade, the smoking customers of the licensing trade, the 'regular lower income clientele' who one should not necessarily presume are all smokers, the political party of your choosing (still a bit confused about that one). Or your own recreational interests? Or another interest group this time?

It's very hard to keep up.


Yes. Take a deep breath. Change is alway difficult but I have every faith in you.

From your reference:


Sounds like a very good reason to ban smoking in places which server alcohol to me, regardsless of whether it affects the porfits of bars. If you really believe that this is a good reason for smoking in bars to be allowed you have less inteligence than I thought.

Ah yes, because adults can't be trusted to look after themselves...Do you really want a nanny state?

EDIT: Actually, what am I asking - by supporting the smoking ban, of course you want a nanny state...

Perhaps that is true, but at least I can spell the word intelligence when using it in ad hominem attacks. And whats a porfit?

If you are so concerned with the health effects of peoples' choices, maybe you should advocate the banning of drinking all together. After all, bars make money by peddling one of the last legal drugs to a large number of addicts.

ok. Can the pro-smokers please specifically tell me how protecting employees from exposure to smoke is any more of a nanny state legislation than any other piece of worker health and safety legislation which applies to all other forms of voluntary employment?

Of course your right, people should be allowed to do exactly want they want, no restictions, we'll just trust them to to what's right. They're adults so leave them be, they'll be fine, they won't blow smoke in our faces, they won't light up while we're eating, they won't damage our health with their childish habit, because they're all responsible considerate adults.

Oh well done, you're reduced to picking up typos, that really reinforces your views.

Nobody's actually said why a bar that has no employees should have a smoking ban.

People can't be trusted to run a business in a way they see fit, customers can't make up their own minds whether to frequent a business or not - That's nanny state stuff...

Because you're not responsible enough for yourself to be able to decide what sort of places to frequent.

So you need the government to help you...

Its an otherwise legal activity that, in many cases, is part of the service offered by the establishment. Look, I am willing to see there are two sides two this argument, and your side is the way the winds are blowing. But to say this is the same as putting asbestos in your walls and not telling your employees or not providing fire extinguishers is, IMO, a bad analogy.

I normally don't do that, but when someone insults my intelligence with a paragraph filled with typos, it is hard to resist. We all make errors, but when insulting someone I generally try to read what I type first and make sure it is at least coherent. Unless I am drunk, of course. And if he was drunk at 9 in the morning... well kudos to him, I suppose, because I am stuck working.

This argument hinges on one single premise: That there is no difference between free market will and political will. Most of the history of employment legislation has shown that to be false however.

The pro-smoking group here has always maintained that if a majority of people wanted no smoking places, there would be no smoking bars making more money, therefore the majority of the places would be no smoking. This seems to imply that there is some secret fanatical cabal of anti-smokers forcing its agenda on the population.

This logic fails, however, because of the fact it would mean there should be no need for any type of regulation of commerce at all.

Do people want businesses to pay a minimum wage to employees: I’d argue the majority do
Will a business gain a competitive advantage if it does not: Yes, it will.

There is a political will of the majority, that does not find expression in the free market. In other words, people do want to vote for a law, but wouldn’t bothered to go across town (or pay more money) to a business which is voluntarily complying.

So again, how is smoking regulation any more nanny state than any other piece of worker and employment legislation. I’m looking for a reason why specifically a smoking ban is somehow beyond the pale.

That's the way, defend the nanny state with other, irrelevant analogies...

You still haven't been able to address the issue of places with no employees. They need to be nannied, right? Can't decide for themselves...

Because a place to smoke while you drink is a service provided by the bar that many smokers wish to use. Asbestos in the wall, or no fire extinguishers, or underpayed, overworked labor are not part of a service provided to a customer.

Actually, as I have expressed in pages of previous flame wars… I would have zero problem with allowing “smoking bars�. If an establishment receives the majority of its income from selling tobacco products, I have no problem with allowing it.

Why?

Because. As I’m trying to show, in order to make laws that make sense, you have to have some sort of over arching philosophy. That’s why I’m probing for the specific difference as to smoking laws… because all I’m hearing from the “pro� group is “this law is retarded, why? Because I don’t like it� Not terribly convincing.

Here is my philosophy for worker safety regulation:
1) Risks which are not required for the operation of the business (but only increase businesses profits) should be banned
2) Risks which are required for the operation of the business should be mitigated as much as possible

So, smoking falls into category 1 for bars. It is not required that people smoking inside. Crab fishing and coal mining however, can not be banned, but the risks associated with these jobs can, should be, and are mitigated as much as possible without destroying the industry.

I'll get to that, how about we focus on the questions which apply to 99% of establishments first though

Also, if passive smoking was such a big problem and such a health risk, why aren't a whole lot of old people dying of it now? When they were young (1950's and 60's), smoking was permitted in public transport, movie theatres, most offices, as well as bars and restaurants. In those days, nobody thought twice about smoking in anyone's homes and nobody was ever sent outside. There were hardly any non-smoking areas.

So why didn't all the people that were young then die of passive smoking related illnesses in the 1980's and 90's?

Because it's overhyped bullshit - that's why...

tfl: a reasonable compromise.

There are thousands of small Stuberl in Germany that operate like that. Can you please show a source that backs up your 1% claim?

If they allowed a place with no employees to allow smoking, then you would then start to argue that they had got an unfair business advantage over the non smoking places. There is only one way, a level playing field, no smoking, no exceptions, that way everybody competes on the same level, if you can't compete you die, that's business.

I hope I'm not the only one here who sees the irony in first saying that the risks of second hand smoke are a complete fabrication... not citing any source.

Then asking for a source for my 99% claim which was quite obviously casual shorthand for "most", and not meant to be taken as an actual statistic.

A complete ban is not a level playing field, when you have some bars in residential areas that will suffer from noise complaints because of the law and some that are not.

A level playing field is actually in allowing businesses to decide for themselves whether they allow smoking or not...

OK - how many people do you personally know who have died of passive smoking?...I don't know any. That's anecdotal evidence - I didn't post some bullshit statistic as you did.

again Hazza, I didn't post a statistic, I'll say it a second time. I wrote 99%, because I was too lazy to write, "most". I suspect you understand that, but are hiding behind being pedantic as a method of avoiding the question.

Secondly, health and safety regulation can and do apply to situations which adversely effect health but do not cause death.

edit: I'll add. My question was just a probing one. Is there a way in which the smoking ban is different? Your non-answer has sufficiently answered my question: No, there isn't. It is no more nanny state, than any other piece of legislation you accept. However, this particular one you just don't like, which is a tough position to defend philosophically.

Too lazy to write most? It's one extra character and you didn't need to even use the shift key...

No, the rules have changed, smoking is no longer allowed, you don't like it, but a lot of people do. If the bars in residential areas can't cope they'll close, that's a shame, but every other country has managed it and most bars in Munich are managing it. The only real problem is these ridiculous smoking clubs, which hopefully will be done away with an smokers will have to learn to live with it. I do not believe that all the smokers who used to go out are now staying at home, just because they can't smoke indoors. They need to adapt to they new rules, just like the bars do. The smoking ban is working and it is a great thing.

Yes there is. You are completely ignoring the culture of bars and pubs and the type of people who frquent these places and spend the most money. I put it to you that many bars need to allow smokers to stay in business. There is an undeniable downturn in business that's occurred in all countries that have introduced a smoking ban. There have been figures posted several times on this and other threads relating to the issue, as well as links to other articles. The Abendzeitung reported a couple of weeks ago that noise complaints have gone up 20% in winter - it'll get worse in summer. Now you can come back with "smokers need to be quiet", but how is a business going to enforce that? Banning repeat offenders means that they will be forced to ban customers that have provided them with their income until now.

I'm curious - why should smoking clubs be done away with? Don't you have enough places you can go to now? Why can they not market their businesses to a section of the population that you are not a part of?

Because everywhere should be run under the same conditions. Monks Town moans about smoking customers leaving his bar to go to a smokers bar, his bar is damaged due to a loophole in the law. If everyone is under the same law then everyone can go to whichever bar they wish. All they have to do is pop outside for 5 minutes now and again for a quick ciggy, same as every other country that has a smoking ban. It works there, it works here, you just don't want it to.

So there's a demand that's there to be filled.

All the crap about


Should actually say:


And no comment on the noise issue AGAIN. What do you propose a business does if their smokers aren't quiet outside? Ban their sources of income? The government changed the goal posts and yes, if a business cannot adapt to changing market conditions then they cannot expect to survive. If there's a change in government regulations that came in after a legitimate business opened in a belief that they could operate a certain way, and that is taken away, it is patently unfair.

No, what I said is correct. The noise issue is the same everywhere, if there is excessive noise outside a pub in a residential area in Britain people call the police, if it continues they can lose their licence, they manage not to do this mostly. The same will work, is working, in Munich. There is always a period of adjustment when something changes.

Ah but that law gives a competitive advantage to bars not in residential neighborhood. If I was a smoker here in Hamburg and I had the choice of going to the bar where I have to go outside and worry about being kicked out for talking too loud outside while drunk (which I and any group of drunk people tend to do) or going to the reeperbahn where I can be as rowdy as I want outside at 3 am, which would I choose?

(actually its a moot point at the moment as they have smoking rooms in Hamburg, not sure if this is temporary or whatnot)

Actually, normally I'm not a supporter of things which could be classed as being part of a nanny state, when what people do only impacts themselves. If people want to drink and smoke themsleves to death in their own homes that's fine by me, and even then I'd say if there are children affected there's grounds for something to be done about it. But if you open your eyes and look at the problems caused by binge drinking in the UK, where some people don't feel safe going into towns and cities in the evening because of the number of drunks, I don't believe even you as an ex bar owner can seriously say it isn't a problem which needs addressing. Normally I would hold adults responsible for their own actions, but when people (binge drinkers or smokers) obviously have so little regard for the effects of their actions on other people (and personally, I don't believe anyone who smokes around non-smokers can honeslty say they have any regard for them) then it's up to the government to do something about it.

This is 2008 not 1908. Most civilized/western countries (by this I include places like Oz and Singapore) have a ban on smoking in public places, and people accept that why this has been implemented and get on with it. If there wasn't a good reason for it, do you really think so many countries would have these bans, and so many of them have gone for the blanket bans with no exceptions? Whether the problem here is that more Germans (than say English) smoke, or that they resist it because Hitler tried to stop it, or simple because Germans don't like change, (or dare I say it, because people on TT like being argumentative for the sake of it) people just need to accept that smoking in public places has an impact on those around them is no longer regarded as acceptable. I'll admit that the introduction of the ban in Germany, and especially in Bavaria was a balls up. From the Fedaral govermment not doing it because they knew it would be unpopular and passing the buck off onto the states, to the Bavarian state goverment changing their mind at the last minute, leaving loopholes, and backing down over the fest issue to say it could have been handled better would be an understatement. I also have a sneaking suspicion that in Munich, the City SPD made political capital out of saying they wouldn't enfore the State CSU law, which didn't help. But, it isn't going to go away, no matter how much people dislike it or try to come up with arguments against it, or ways around it, or simply close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and go 'la, la, la, i'm not listening' in the hope that when they open their eyes everything will have gone back to the way it was before.

Yesterday I was act the docs to get my hayfever prescription, including the inhalers as it affects my breathing. The knowledge that this year I'll be able to go to pubs and bars without the second hand smoke making this worse is for me a massive bonus. It makes going out a hell of a lot more pleasant experience, compared to previous years when the combination of smoke and hayfever has sometimes made me leave places and go home. I have all the evidence I need know that second hand smoke is bad for my health, no matter how much people here on TT try to say there is no proof. If the smoking ban affects the profitability of some bars, then I'm sorry, but it isn't really important to me, and if people think this makes me selfish, then so be it. People might say I could stay home, but I think that in this enlightened day and age there's nothing wrong with expecting to be able to go out without breathing othere people's smoke.

Wow, that was longer than i planned. Anyway, I'm done for now, back to work.

Morning all, you still here?

The "most western countries" do it argument isn't always right, I mean most western countries have outlawed marijuana, I don't think that means it is universally accepted as a justified ban. Its not likely to change, but my point is that something being the accepted law of the land does not automatically justify it.

That being said, even though I support it, its easy to see why the personal responsibility angle with smoking in bars is pushing the limits.