Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Small bars exempted from ban on smoking

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 31 July 2008
By Diana Niedernhoefer
GERMANY'S highest court ruled yesterday that small bars and restaurants should be exempted from regional smoking bans.
It said the bans were unconstitutional because they "seriously interfered" with the livelihoods of these businesses.

Smoking bans came into effect individually in most of Germany's 16 federal states at the start of the year.

The fact that the laws allow bars and restaurants to create closed-off smoking areas in effect put small establishments that lacked the space for these at an unfair disadvantage, the court said.

The ruling upheld a complaint by the owners of two small bars in Berlin and a nightclub operator in the state of Baden-Württemberg, who argued that the legislation had put their businesses at risk.

The Constitutional Court said the rules must be redrawn by the end of 2009 and that, until then, smoking must be allowed in bars and restaurants of less than 80sq ft. As most of Germany's regional states have similar smoking laws the ruling is likely to set a precedent.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 July 2008 10:52 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

31/07/2008 01:11:19
Good. Germany has it's head on right. I like smaller bars, more talk among locals, not generally crowded,(Untill the smokers from the big bars show up). As the Dropkick Murpheys sing-"I drink in dirty bars, "cause they serve bigger drinks, I don't own fifty cars, I take the train and man it stinks". I haven't been to any bar other than my local legion since the "Ban", and that's going to change here soon. It would be so easy to designate smoking V non smoking bars, but that makes too much sense.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 01:33:23

2dogs in D.C. ~1,

Totally Agree 2dogs!

Pity the UK is led by Muppet's!
3

,

31/07/2008 03:24:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Ferg,

Brage 31/07/2008 07:35:28
I guess the smokers still just don't get it, that there smoke is actually difficult to contain and stinks. Then there is the problem of defining a small bar. The Germans have just created a wishy washy ruling. It's either banned or not, there should be no half measures, it just creates confusion.
5

Guga II,

Rockall 31/07/2008 09:18:34
#2. Unfortunately the muppets here are led by Stalinist, totalitarian, control freak politicians who want to deny people the freedom of choice.
6

James Donald,

Newbridge 31/07/2008 10:11:05
For a nation of hypocondriacs, I am surprised that so many Germans (especially women) smoke.
I don't really fancy going into a small bar or restaurant of less than 80 sq ft and trying to eat whilst the other patrons are puffing away on their unfiltered Ernte 20s.
The only freedom of choice for non-smokers is to eat and drink elsewhere.
7

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 10:45:29
Once again, the Germans have got it right and we have got it wrong.

Most european countries have smoking legislation like this. Provision is made for smokers by the use of segregation and common sense. Why can we not do the same here?

Because of the stupid labour jack-boot mentality, that's why.
8

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 10:48:05
#3:

Yes, maybe they should do those kids of tests. In that way, people like you would be excluded because you wouldn't even pass at the "stupid" level.

That way, no-one would have to put up with listening to your bilge.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 31/07/2008 11:58:18
Germany being slightly less regulated than Britain.

Who would have thunk it?
10

Number 6,

Germany 31/07/2008 12:14:44
The fact is , it just looks stupid to ban cigarrettes anywhere while making them freely available.

german's have gone to great measures to ensure it is impossible for kids to buy cigs. Adults know the dangers but must be allowed to make the choice. AI am a non smoker but the persecution of thiose who do smoke
was getting out of hand.
11

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 12:20:04
#11:

" am a non smoker but the persecution of thiose who do smoke was getting out of hand."

You want to try coming over here for a while mate! If they were to treat any other group of people in the way some people treat those who choose to smoke, then there would be a major international outcry.

It really baffles me that where other countries can find a way to accommodate people's varying preferences, we cannot. It must be because we have a cr4p government who only ever listen to bigotted loonies.
12

Yeah1,

31/07/2008 12:58:50
Why do some smokers get so worked up about having to go outside of bars, pubs and restaurants when you want a cigarette?

Surely you aren't so selfish that you cannot show consideration for non-smokers who wish to have a drink or food without having to breathe in other people's smoke and without having their clothes stinking of other people's smoke, not to mention the health problems of passive smoking.
13

DeniseX,

31/07/2008 13:03:47
If the UK Governments were so concerned about our health, why are they allowing our athletes to compete in Beijing, where WHO state that pollution there is five times above the safety level.
14

we the people,

31/07/2008 13:28:36
i agree twa dogs. Sounds like a similar arrangement to spain. seems a sensible compronmise that caters for everyone.
15

Yeah1,

31/07/2008 14:10:41
#15

"seems a sensible compronmise that caters for everyone."

Wrong. What about the people who work in the bars that allowed smoking? They would still be subjected to passive smoking, inhaling smoke etc.

I find it astonishing that smokers are so selfish they are willing to force others to breathe in their smoke and be subjected to passive smoking just so they don't have to suffer the inconvenience of going outside for a cigarette.

Personally if I had a habit that caused others around me any degree of discomfort, let alone any possible health problems, I would try my hardest to ensure that no one else had to endure my habit.

Its just a shame that these selfish addicts are unwilling to compromise in the same way.
16

DeniseX,

31/07/2008 14:22:35
Smokers are not forced to smoke outside, just like staff were not forced to work in smokey pubs. Both have the choice not to go into such pubs.
I'm sure most of the staff laid off because of the smoking ban, would prefer to have a job.
17

Guga II,

Rockall 31/07/2008 14:25:08
#16.

Why is it that self-righteous prats like you want to deny people freedom of choice?

Why can't pubs decide that they are going to be either smoking or non-smoking pubs? That way, self-righteous prats like you can go and drink in the non-smoking ones; and if you want a job in a pub, self-righteous prats like you can choose to work in a non-smoking pub.

It's people like you, with fascist tendencies, that cause all the problems in the world.
18

Rubber Dan,

New York, NY 31/07/2008 16:22:48
Can't smoke in bars in New York, either, and let's face it: that's the greatest city in the greatest country in the world!
19

Yeah1,

31/07/2008 16:28:08
Smokers have freedom of choice - they can still choose to smoke or not smoke, just not in circumstances where their smoking causing health problems and discomfort to other people.

Its similar to, for example, having sex in public. People obviously have the right to have sex in private, but not in public places where their sex act may affect other people.

The difference is that other people having sex in public merely causes problems from a psychological point of view, whereas smoking in the presence of others causes them health problems, as well as forcing them to breathe in smoke, making their clothes stink of smoke etc.

I like this quote:

"My pleasure is beer, and this creates urine. Your pleasure is smoking, and this creates poisonous fumes. Don't pollute my air space, and I promise not to urinate on your desk."
20

we the people,

31/07/2008 16:49:47
#16 you have a fair point.although in terms of workers' rights i suspect the smoking law was pretty far down any list of union demands - i'd happily trade it for the right to secondary pickets and a properly enforced national living wage, and the normalisation of the status of undocumanted migrant workers.
21

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 16:54:37
Yeah1

Have you actually read the comments that have been posted here? For once it was a civilised discussion where people were talking sense.

That was until you came along and started trotting out all the usual bilge like "What about people who don't smoke having to suffer..."

Change the bl00dy record for christs sake. We are talking here about ways that normal people can co-exist together and reach a compromise. That is normal INTELLIGENT people. If you can't contribute effectively to a discussion then please refrain from posting your knee-jerk drivel and boring us all with rubbish.

Rabid anti-smokers like you are NOT normal people. 20 years ago you would have been laughed at---and somehow I have a feeling that those days are going to return. More and more people every day are getting fed up to the back teeth with all this jack-boot nonsense that is inflicted upon us.
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 31/07/2008 16:57:28
And if you don't like smoke, stay away from bars and pubs.

We could do without moronic bores like you thrusting their way into conversations on topics of which they know nothing about.

Remember:

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say. A fool speaks when he wants to say something"

You are most firmly in the latter category.
23

oddoneout,

31/07/2008 17:13:22
#7

At least you have a choice, smokers can either not go in, or not go in. But it is getting a bit silly, people are now wanting to stop people smoking in public as the smoke is drifting in their direction. I respect your choice not to smoke, now respect my choice!
24

2dogs in D.C.,

31/07/2008 18:45:11
#23-Alternative,I noticed also that for the most part, this thread was civilized. Amazing, for this site;) If the anti-smoke bunch would look back to my origional post, I recommended smoking AND non-smoking bars. Employees are free to chose in which they would work, patrons are free to choose where they socialize. But, again, it makes too much sense to ever fly. At least, where I am.
25

James Donald,

Newbridge 31/07/2008 19:04:20
#18 Guga II,Rockall - If I were to take your post at face value, I might conclude that you are a self righteous prat.
All this fuss because the wheezy smokers have to drag themselves outside to feed their nicotine addiction. The smoking ban is here to stay in the UK, live with it and adjust and your life will be a lot better.
26

James Donald,

Newbridge 31/07/2008 19:07:20
#24 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,Edinburgh - Try nicotine patches if you are this tetchy. Time for you to get used to the smoking ban or head abroad - maybe to a small village in Germany with a tiny Bierstube.
27

Canucker,

Canada 01/08/2008 03:24:26
It's the 21st century, if you are stupid enough to smoke go for it! Just don't stink up my clothes while I'm eating or drinking, stay at home and puff away.
28

DeniseX,

01/08/2008 07:55:08
James Donald.
You say that nicotine is addictive and yet you want smokers to use nicotine patches.
Nicotine patches do not work. They are an invention of pharmaceutical companies to make a lot of money. ASH advertise the patches, because they recieve a lot of money from the pharmaceutical companies.
The most successful way by far to quit, is by hypnosis. ASH will not advertise hypnotists, because they make no money out of them.
29

James Donald,

Newbridge 01/08/2008 10:27:05
#30 DeniseX - "You say that nicotine is addictive and yet you want smokers to use nicotine patches" - I don't think I said this at all.
I am not really concerned what ASH does or does not advertise and I am only concerned that I am not subjected to second-hand smoke as it is highly unpleasant.
If smokers truely want to quit, they should find a way that suits them. Some manage to quit using only will power.
30

Yeah1,

01/08/2008 12:20:41
#24

"And if you don't like smoke, stay away from bars and pubs."

Actually unfortunately for you we have a smoking ban that is here to stay and that means I am free to go to bars and pubs without having to breathe the smoke from selfish addicts like you.

If you don't like smoking outside I would suggest that YOU stay away from bars and pubs, or alternatively more to Germany as another poster suggested.

"We could do without moronic bores like you thrusting their way into conversations on topics of which they know nothing about."

I am perfectly entitled to express my views on smoking just as you are likewise entitled.

I'm not sure how you feel qualified to state that I know 'nothing about' about a particular topic since you know nothing whatsoever about me.

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say. A fool speaks when he wants to say something. You are most firmly in the latter category."

I can assure you that I am not a fool. For one I am not stupid enough to poison myself with, and waste money on, an addictive drug like you do.

Secondly I am pretty certain my educational standards are high above anything you have achieved.
31

mike - across the pond,

kinda funny 01/08/2008 16:29:11
there are ads on american TV now where one person is excusing themselves so they can "pass gas"... and people are giving them various reactions

towards the end of the ad it becomes clear that they are not passing methane... but excusing themselves to smoke a cigarette

then the kicker... they start listing the noxious gasses released in cigarette smoke that if you thought about it for a HALF second there wouldnt BE a debate about whether you should go outside... the debate would be whether you should be confined to a bubble even outside!!!!

kinda strange how in polite society if you have to "rip a nasty one" a smoker would excuse themselves... but if you ask one of them to take their nasty butt habit outside.... you will get a whole raft of garbage....
32

DeniseX,

01/08/2008 18:20:41
Instead of a smoking ban, the Government should have introduced a limit on polution levels. Since the smoking ban, pubs have taken out their ventilation units and the polution levels have increased.
If the Government was so concerned about the health of its subjects, then they would have stopped our athletes from going to Beijing, where WHO state that the safety levels are four time more than that permitted.
33

James Donald,

Newbridge 01/08/2008 21:34:13
#34 DeniseX,01/08/2008 - I don't know what pubs you have been going into but in none I have visited since the smoking ban have the polution levels increased and I haven't noticed any ventilation units being removed. What I have noticed is a lot of places going to a lot of trouble to provide comfortable smoking areas outside for the smoking patrons and I have heard very few grumbles from smokers I have met. I have yet to meet a smoker who has not complied with the ban (at least not during legal opening hours).
34

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 10:07:03
James
What do think about our caring Government sending our athletes to Beijing?
Carcinogens are said to be the main cause of lung cancer. Did you know that one measure of martini contains over 2,000 more carcinogens than one cigarette.
Pubs were paying hundreds of pounds per month for the rental of ventilation units. With less people using pubs they had those units removed to save money and the carcinogens from alcohol are in the air far longer.
35

James Donald,

Newbridge 02/08/2008 23:06:25
#36 DeniseX - The Olympics have nothing to do with the smoking ban and, in any case, I do not support having the Olympics in a one-party oppresive state.
If you I trying to tell me that the danger I face from airborne carcinogens caused by alcohol every time I visit the pub is greater than the danger from second hand smoke, then you are wasting your time. You have more chance of convincing me the earth is flat.
The smoking ban is here in the UK and is here to stay. The sooner you learn to live with this, the better your life will be. I put up with smokers in pubs for years and many of them were very inconsiderate. No way I want to return to the past because a minority of very vocal "wheezies" feel their covil liberties have been attacked because they now have to drag themselves outside for a smoke.
36

DeniseX,

03/08/2008 08:21:02
James
The smoking ban was introduced on the grounds of health and safety. Our athletes should not compete in Beijing as it is unhealthy there.
You obviously do not approve of our oppressive state (over 3,000 new laws in the last ten years) having the olympics in 2012.
Passive drinking is far more dangerous than passive smoking.
37

James Donald,

Newbridge 03/08/2008 17:12:19
#38 DeniseX - "The smoking ban was introduced on the grounds of health and safety" - so what. I did not introduce the ban or even campaign for its introduction but now that it is here, I do enjoy the benefits.
"Our athletes should not compete in Beijing as it is unhealthy there" - I don't have any say in this so you should lobby against UK participation by political means (you might be a bit late for that). That you consider the UK an "oppresive state" is ridiculous but at least you have the freedom to make such an absurd statement. Real oppresive states do not afford their citizens the luxury of such criticism.
"Passive drinking is far more dangerous than passive smoking" - what next? The World is flat? Get real. As I stated previously, the smoking ban is here and here to stay (all the major political parties will continue to support it). You will have to learn to live with it and the sooner the better for your sake.

38

DeniseX,

03/08/2008 18:03:06
Every day we hear of drinkers assaulting, maiming and killing others. We never of hear of anybody being maimed or killed by cigarette smoke.
Alcohol is far more dangerous than tobacco.
39

James Donald,

Newbridge 04/08/2008 12:36:26
#40 DeniseX - Maybe you should just stay out of pubs all together if you think that alcohol is far more dangerous than tobacco. However, I think you will find that there are still some pubs where you can quite safely go without the fear of being assaulted, maimed or killed. Take a chance, keep some money for a taxi home (just in case) and enjoy al fresco smoking at your local.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.