The smoking ban in Germany is simply pathetic

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.

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

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.

No, I wouldn't, because most people manage to drink responsibly without any effect at all on those around them.

And just to show that anyone can pick up on other people's typos...

Well that just proves the point that the punters want smoking allowed in bars, or this would not be a competitive advantage...

No it doesn't, it proves that some punters want it. That doesn't mean all punters want it. Some people put up with it but are a lot happier if they don't have to.

Whats a punter, out of curiosity - a patron of an establishment? I keep picturing the guys who kick the ball in American football and am wondering what so many of them are doing in Munich...

Well you can't deny that this is something that market forces would take care of. Businesses are moral neutral. They just do what they think will make them the most money.

So people are now even willing to pay to go to places where smoking is allowed in preference to going to smoke-free places for free.

Allershausen - You couldn't be more wrong. I have lost a lot of motivation to go to the pub, which is something that I used to do at least 4 nights a week when the ban was introduced. I know a lot of people that are the same. The staple of drinking only establishments is steeped in the tradition of beer and a fag. I blame Roy Castle personally.

Well, just to give you an idea...at my office, on my floor, we have about 27 employees of which only 4 smoke. Three of the non-smokers got together and started discussing the fact that the smokers can smoke in the kitchen on our floor, with the door open and smoke wafting into the hallways. Several times, the topic has come up at the meeting of the executives but there is one (Fr. Rottweiler) who insists on keeping the company a smoking company for the customers who come to visit us. Finally, enough non-smokers complained to some of the executives that we are now finally getting a separate place for the smokers to smoke (outside on the fire escape). The point is, the smokers aren't smoking on the fire escape because the executives changed the rules and demanded it, they're smoking out there because the non-smoking employees forced the change. And Fr. Rottweiler is still walking around shaking her head and saying 'oh but the customers!' - she's just pissed because she can't chain smoke in her office anymore.

So, don't give me this crap that no-one wants these smoking laws. The majority want them. The pub owners, of course, don't want them because it means they will lose money. It's that simple. End of story.

@Hazza, I am not sure it would be possible to have a business which has customers on site to be free of staff/workers. What happens in the event of an accident, fire? The business is responcible for the customers on site. No staff would mean there is no one there to be responcible for the welfare of customers.

Not sure about germany but I think (I am not sure) that would be against health & Safety law as there would be no one avaible to exercise the duty of care. With out that the bar would either not get a licence or would leave itself open to legal problems. This would impact on any insurance premiums if they could get insurance at all.

If the place is a smoking club then there is a fire risk (regardless of how little there is or how anal it may sound) and as such there must be people on site who can deal with any fire situation.

Even if staff are on site but not in the bar area, they will have to go in there to direct poeple out of the safety exits.

Hazza, you've probably never been to the U.S. but about 20 years ago, people could still smoke in bars, restuarants and offices. Now, you can't smoke anywhere except your car and your own home. People adapt. And now, very few people smoke in the States. Culturally it is no longer accepted. And eventually, it will no longer be accepted here either.

Why should smoking be banned there?

Additionally, increased exceptions means increased chances for loopholes. I can already think of an additional one for this case

It's nowhere near as complex as you pretend it is and it's certainly not as complex as your strange speed limit example.

As for minors. I support restricting access to tobacco and alcohol to them. They need to be protected because they often aren't old enough to know the consequences of their decisions - but for adults, well one must assume that they can figure things out for themselves and make informed choices...

The speed limit example isn't complex. One passing zone for vehicles with a 0-100 time of X seconds, one for vehicles under that... it all adds up though.
But you're point was that it is "patently unfair" to change the rules for an existing business. So was it wrong to restrict the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors? My point being: almost every business gets the rules changed during its operation. Starting a business does not somehow guarantee a right to exceptions to all further legislation.

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

The widespread existence of smoking clubs didn't happen on January 1st with pubs decinging to simply "ignore" the law

Apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure the non-smoking law has put off new businesses from opening as well.

consider that they have an addiction problem

Loads of businesses went bust during the transition from film to digital photography, little old ma and pa stores that offered great service, were friendly and efficient and did nothing wrong except fail to appreciate that there was a sea change in their business area that they couldn't control but simply had to go along with. While not in itself a direct comparison to the smoking ban, one being consumer lead the other being legislation reacting to consumer demand (I have a feeling we'll be arguing that point but it's at least fair to make it), the effect on business is identical: Change or die.