Smoke Nazis Beaten back in Germany

[Tarheel]

Unlike the Nanny-state Democrats Socialists who know whats better for us sheeple than we do the Germans have beaten back the Smoke Nazis there at least temporarily.

Here's the article (all emphasis is my own):

German court overturns smoking ban
Germany's top court has ruled that the smoking ban introduced across the country earlier this year is unconstitutional.
 
By Harry de Quetteville in Berlin
Last Updated: 4:37PM BST 31 Jul 2008

The ruling came after a case brought by the owner of two small bars, who claim that their business has been unfairly hit by the smoking ban.

Introduced in patchwork fashion across the country's 16 federal states earlier this year, Germany's smoking ban has been poorly received by often tobacco-friendly Germans, about a third of whom smoke.

The laws have often been ignored or barely enforced, with the owners of small bars and restaurants claiming that their businesses were threatened by the legislation.

Among them were the owners of two separate one-room pubs in Berlin and the south-western state Baden-Wuerttemberg.

They claimed that their bars small size prevented them cordoning off a smokers' area, as other bars have been allowed to, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. The constitutional court agreed.

"I am satisfied all around," said Sylvia Thimm, owner of 'Doors' in Berlin, one of the two bars involved in the case.

German tobacco lobbyists DVZ said the smoking ban was heavy handed.

"We are warning against a growing culture of bans and regulations in Germany," said DVZ chief Wouda Kuipers.

In fact, Germany has long been notoriously heavily regulated, but smoking has established itself as a lone act of rebellion against the prevailing culture.

Under the Nazis smoking was frowned upon. After 1945 smoking became a symbol of a post-war freedoms and broadmindedness.

Now, all German states will have to review their smoking bans and come up with new legislation by 2009, either banning smoking outright or allowing it in one-room bars too.

Here's the link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2475001/German-court-overturns-smoking-ban.html


Meanwhile in Congress...the Democrats Socialist nannies are debating on yet another tobacco bill this one to not only increase cigarette and other taxes further but put tobacco regulation under the Food and Drug Administration (rather than agriculture)...and the dingbat representative ironically named Dingell (D-MI) found time to personally scold House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) on his use of a legal product; then the asshole didn't give Boehner a chance to respond to his impassioned "soliloquy".  If smoking is so damn evil then why doesn't Congress just ban the use of tobacco and stop collecting the taxes from the use of those evil products.  Fucking hypocrites!   

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Dingell Uses Tobacco Debate to Scold Boehner for Smoking
Alicia Mundy reports on food and drug politics and policies.

One of the stranger moments in the House debate Wednesday afternoon over the tobacco bill was a gentle soliloquy by tough guy John Dingell. The bill, which would put the tobacco industry under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration, is important to Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The 82-year-old dean of the House is well known for his gruff demeanor and flashes of temper. But when he stood to defend the tobacco bill against attack by Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican honcho in the House, Dingell’s only message was, “I care.”

Dingell yielded himself 15 seconds “for the purpose of responding to my beloved friend, the minority leader.”

“This legislation is on the floor because people are killing themselves by smoking these evil cigarettes,” Dingell said.

“The distinguished gentleman, the minority leader, is going to be amongst the next to die,” said Dingell. Then with a wide smile, he added, “I am trying to save him, as the rest of us are, because he is committing suicide every time he puffs on one of those things.”

Members murmured. Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who was sitting in the speaker’s chair with the gavel, laughed as several politicians turned towards Boehner, who still smokes. A lot, staffers say.

Boehner tried to jump back into the debate, but got rolled by Dingell who gave the floor to another Democrat.

Afterward, Boehner had no comment. His spokesman said that Boehner thanks Dingell for his concerns, but added, “Mr. Boehner feels great, and he hopes the chairman is wrong”– about dying soon.
...

Here's the link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/31/dingell-uses-tobacco-debate-to-scold-boehner-for-smoking/

[Saniflush]

Those crazy krauts.  Maybe they weren't wrong about everything.

[Tarheel]

Those crazy krauts.  Maybe they weren't wrong about everything.

You gotto hand it to them at least they are more liberal (in a classical, Jeffersonian sense not a leftist, Socialist sense) about the use of a legal product than we seem to be getting!

I am really sick and tired of the damn holier than thou smoke nazis over here trying to curb our freedom to use a legal product!  Especially the damn hypocrites in Congress!

[Kaos]

I am a smoke nazi.   You will not win here.  The war is over.

[Saniflush]

I am a smoke nazi.   You will not win here.  The war is over.

I will win. 

[Tarheel]

I am a smoke nazi.   You will not win here.  The war is over.

That may be true but you let the smoke nazis win and they'll come after your porn next pal.  They'll win that war too.

[Kaos]

That may be true but you let the smoke nazis win and they'll come after your porn next pal.  They'll win that war too.

The day my porn makes you sneeze and cough and ruins your meal because I'm looking at it in a public restaurant is the day they can come after my porn and I will gladly give it up.

The difference between smoking and anything else is that your right to smoke in public ends the minute it infringes on my right to enjoy an environment free from it.  If you can smoke and never exhale, I'm all good with that.  Invent smoker's helmets that keep the full amount circling your head and I'm good with that too. 

My best friend smokes.  But he's considerate.  He never smokes in our house or in his, he always goes outside and away from others to do so.  If all smokers would follow his lead, you'd never run into issues like you have now. 

[Saniflush]

The day my porn makes you sneeze and cough and ruins your meal because I'm looking at it in a public restaurant is the day they can come after my porn and I will gladly give it up.

When is the last time this happened?  I would suggest that you upgrade where you like to eat or make the management do their job.  Which ever applies in this case.

[Kaos]

When is the last time this happened?  I would suggest that you upgrade where you like to eat or make the management do their job.  Which ever applies in this case.

Sunday.  Idiot made a scene because he wanted his post-meal cigar and management was too gutless to put him or it out.

But that's neither here nor there.  The fact remains that the act of smoking is not self-contained.  He made a comparison to porn.  If I were out reading porn in the open, I'd expect for it to be taken away.  When smokers can smoke and none of the by-products escape far enough from their vicinity to disturb anyone else, then go for it.  I used to smoke. Smoked for years.  I'm glad they changed things.  When I think back on what the offices used to be like when people smoked out on the floor and in their offices... Gross.

[Saniflush]

Sunday.  Idiot made a scene because he wanted his post-meal cigar and management was too gutless to put him or it out.

I just don't understand why you would go to a smoking establishment if you feel that strongly about it?

[Tarheel]

I just don't understand why you would go to a smoking establishment if you feel that strongly about it?

AMEN to that! 


KAOS, respectfully, if the owner of an establishment allows smoking then you, Sir, are forwarned.  Check your bitching about it at the door because your right to bitch about it ends there.  If you don't like it don't go there.

My point regarding the smoke nazis is that it's all about infringing upon our freedoms.  It might be smoking one day, the next day it might be certain kinds of food that the socialists deem are bad for you, and the next day it might be any porn...not just the juvenile kind.  Once the camel's nose is in the tent so to speak...

Tobacco is legal and smoking is legal.  If enjoying a fine tobacco product is allowed in a private establishment (or a home) then refer to above.

[Kaos]

I just don't understand why you would go to a smoking establishment if you feel that strongly about it?

Wasn't a smoking establishment.  I wouldn't go to one. 

The guy lit up anyway.  Waiter told him it was a no-smoking joint and he got loud and red-faced.  We were about done anyway.   

[Kaos]

AMEN to that! 


KAOS, respectfully, if the owner of an establishment allows smoking then you, Sir, are forwarned.  Check your bitching about it at the door because your right to bitch about it ends there.  If you don't like it don't go there.

My point regarding the smoke nazis is that it's all about infringing upon our freedoms.  It might be smoking one day, the next day it might be certain kinds of food that the socialists deem are bad for you, and the next day it might be any porn...not just the juvenile kind.  Once the camel's nose is in the tent so to speak...

Tobacco is legal and smoking is legal.  If enjoying a fine tobacco product is allowed in a private establishment (or a home) then refer to above.

Tobacco is legal.  You enjoying it is also legal.

It is not, however, your inalienable right to inflict your "enjoyment" on me or anyone else who chooses not to partake.   And therein lies the problem with smoking.  Unless you do it in your own home, away from everyone else, you simply CAN'T do it without infringing on someone else -- and that just doesn't work.

The logical leap to connect smoking -- which intrudes upon everyone near when done in public -- with porn or food or anything else that does NOT intrude has no foundation or basis.  If somebody tells you to stop pissing all over the booths at a restaurant, that doesn't mean that they're going to outlaw chicken nuggets tomorrow.  Pissing is legal. Yet you have no moral authority to demand public pissing. By the same token, you have no moral authority to demand the right to smoke in public.

[Tarheel]

you have no moral authority to demand the right to smoke in public.

Good arguments...but yes I do as long as it's a legal product and I enjoy it where it's allowed to do so publicly.

I do hate that you had that problem with the smoker this past Sunday.  I would never be so callous as to light up in an establishment where it was clearly not allowed and he was clearly a jerk for doing so and the owner was clearly a pussy for not having him removed when he didn't put it out.

[Kaos]

Good arguments...but yes I do as long as it's a legal product and I enjoy it where it's allowed to do so publicly.

Don't disagree there. 

And where I think you and I would be on the same page is that business owners should have the right to choose.  If I own a restaurant and I want to condone smoking -- which would I guess be any Huddle House in America -- then I should have that right.  I should be able to put up signs saying "Smokers Welcome."   And those who don't want to smoke will know to avoid my place.  It's MY risk to do that and I should be able to weigh the potential loss/gain of business for making that choice.

BUT...

I also think those rights should be extended to anybody who owns anything.  If I have a house for rent and I decide that I don't want to rent it to somebody who smokes, to somebody who is gay, to Mexicans or to people who wear funny hats, that should be my right. I own the home. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

As a business owner I should have the right to hire whoever I want.  If I feel that exclusively hiring a certain type of person will hurt or help my core business, I should have the right to hire only those that fit the profile. I should have the authority to hire only Latinos or only women or only lesbians or only Methodists if that's what I want to do. By the same token I should be able to exclude any and all.  I own the business. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

So there.

[Tarheel]

Tobacco is legal.  You enjoying it is also legal.

It is not, however, your inalienable right to inflict your "enjoyment" on me or anyone else who chooses not to partake.   And therein lies the problem with smoking.  Unless you do it in your own home, away from everyone else, you simply CAN'T do it without infringing on someone else -- and that just doesn't work.

The logical leap to connect smoking -- which intrudes upon everyone near when done in public -- with porn or food or anything else that does NOT intrude has no foundation or basis.  If somebody tells you to stop pissing all over the booths at a restaurant, that doesn't mean that they're going to outlaw chicken nuggets tomorrow.  Pissing is legal. Yet you have no moral authority to demand public pissing. By the same token, you have no moral authority to demand the right to smoke in public.

It does if the leap you're making is not about something that intrudes but about something that the Socialists think is bad for you.  Sorry that I did not 'splain that better.

[Tarheel]

Don't disagree there. 

And where I think you and I would be on the same page is that business owners should have the right to choose.  If I own a restaurant and I want to condone smoking -- which would I guess be any Huddle House in America -- then I should have that right.  I should be able to put up signs saying "Smokers Welcome."   And those who don't want to smoke will know to avoid my place.  It's MY risk to do that and I should be able to weigh the potential loss/gain of business for making that choice.

BUT...

I also think those rights should be extended to anybody who owns anything.  If I have a house for rent and I decide that I don't want to rent it to somebody who smokes, to somebody who is gay, to Mexicans or to people who wear funny hats, that should be my right. I own the home. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

As a business owner I should have the right to hire whoever I want.  If I feel that exclusively hiring a certain type of person will hurt or help my core business, I should have the right to hire only those that fit the profile. I should have the authority to hire only Latinos or only women or only lesbians or only Methodists if that's what I want to do. By the same token I should be able to exclude any and all.  I own the business. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

So there.

I don't think that I disagree with you there; discrimination is not always a bad thing...maybe I actually AM a Libertarian after all!

[GarMan]

Sorry...  Had a rough day...  Just getting caught up here...

The day my porn makes you sneeze and cough and ruins your meal because I'm looking at it in a public restaurant is the day they can come after my porn and I will gladly give it up.

Wasn't a smoking establishment.  I wouldn't go to one. 

The guy lit up anyway.  Waiter told him it was a no-smoking joint and he got loud and red-faced.  We were about done anyway.   

I'll try to put this as polite as possible.  I think the others have done so already, but there's something that "you people" keep ignoring. 

There is no such thing as a "public" restaurant in the United States.  They're all owned by individuals or corporations, and they all have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.  If you don't like smoke, you simply avoid the places that cater to smokers or do other things that you don't like.  It's that fucking simple.  There's no other debate here... PERIOD.  If you don't like the icky-nasty-shewy smoke because it irritates your fragile little nose causing you to coughy-coughy and sneezy-sneezy, you pick your ass up and go somewhere else.  Again, it's that fucking simple! 

Fuck the rest of your pathetic whiny-assed story.  If I were you, I would have walked out and not paid the bill.  You were a pussy for not marching out of the restaurant, if in fact the restaurant was truly non-smoking.  The guy was probably an asshole, so you'll get no argument from me.  However, if the server permitted him to light up, it was then within your power to leave.  Was anybody forcing you to stay there and endure the cigar smoke?  I doubt it. 

Nobody is arguing the forcing of you to tolerate our cigarette or cigar smoke.  In fact, nobody to my knowledge has ever argued that point.  The real argument is the government infringing on private property rights to cater to those who don't like the practices of the restaurant or bar owners.  Would you go into a steakhouse and demand a grilled-cheese sandwhich?  Would you expect the government to force all restaurants to serve your beloved grilled-cheese sandwhiches?  This whole argument is ridiculous, and I'll never understand why morons don't understand it. 

BUT...

I also think those rights should be extended to anybody who owns anything.  If I have a house for rent and I decide that I don't want to rent it to somebody who smokes, to somebody who is gay, to Mexicans or to people who wear funny hats, that should be my right. I own the home. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

As a business owner I should have the right to hire whoever I want.  If I feel that exclusively hiring a certain type of person will hurt or help my core business, I should have the right to hire only those that fit the profile. I should have the authority to hire only Latinos or only women or only lesbians or only Methodists if that's what I want to do. By the same token I should be able to exclude any and all.  I own the business. I worked to pay for it.  What I do with it should be up to me and me alone with no government intervention.

AND, THOSE RIGHTS are already there!!!  So, why take the opposite stance on smoking?  It makes no sense. 

[Kaos]

Sorry...  Had a rough day...  Just getting caught up here...

I'll try to put this as polite as possible.  I think the others have done so already, but there's something that "you people" keep ignoring. 

There is no such thing as a "public" restaurant in the United States.  They're all owned by individuals or corporations, and they all have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.  If you don't like smoke, you simply avoid the places that cater to smokers or do other things that you don't like.  It's that fucking simple.  There's no other debate here... PERIOD.  If you don't like the icky-nasty-shewy smoke because it irritates your fragile little nose causing you to coughy-coughy and sneezy-sneezy, you pick your ass up and go somewhere else.  Again, it's that fucking simple! 

Fuck the rest of your pathetic whiny-assed story.  If I were you, I would have walked out and not paid the bill.  You were a pussy for not marching out of the restaurant, if in fact the restaurant was truly non-smoking.  The guy was probably an asshole, so you'll get no argument from me.  However, if the server permitted him to light up, it was then within your power to leave.  Was anybody forcing you to stay there and endure the cigar smoke?  I doubt it. 

Nobody is arguing the forcing of you to tolerate our cigarette or cigar smoke.  In fact, nobody to my knowledge has ever argued that point.  The real argument is the government infringing on private property rights to cater to those who don't like the practices of the restaurant or bar owners.  Would you go into a steakhouse and demand a grilled-cheese sandwhich?  Would you expect the government to force all restaurants to serve your beloved grilled-cheese sandwhiches?  This whole argument is ridiculous, and I'll never understand why morons don't understand it. 

AND, THOSE RIGHTS are already there!!!  So, why take the opposite stance on smoking?  It makes no sense. 

You're wrong. 

I'm not talking about smoking in smoking areas. I'm talking about smoking in places that are, by definition, public.

I have no issue with a restaurant owner declaring his restaurant a smoker-zone.  I won't eat there.   But there are some places I've had to deal with people smoking and it's THESE morons, not the non-smokers who are the reason for the enactment and enforcement of the bans -- because THESE FUCKING MORONS don't have the common courtesy to behave in a civil manner.  The places I've had to deal with FUCKING SMOKING MORONS in the last five years:

1) Sitting in front of me at AU football games.  One asshole lit up four or five different times at which point I informed him that if he did it again, I was going to shove the cigarette up his ass.
2) Concerts
3) Standing in line for movie tickets
4) Standing directly in the door of a non-smoking restaurant (because it was raining)
5) Standing outside my door at the office where I worked (when I had an outside door)
6) Numerous times inside non-smoking restaurants. 
7) At a park watching fireworks

Need I go on?  In almost every situation, the request to please desist with the cigarettes was met with ill-inormed rants about "AmuriCAN freedoms"  and other such drivel.

[GarMan]

You're wrong. 

I'm not talking about smoking in smoking areas. I'm talking about smoking in places that are, by definition, public.

I have no issue with a restaurant owner declaring his restaurant a smoker-zone.  I won't eat there.   But there are some places I've had to deal with people smoking and it's THESE morons, not the non-smokers who are the reason for the enactment and enforcement of the bans -- because THESE FUCKING MORONS don't have the common courtesy to behave in a civil manner.  The places I've had to deal with FUCKING SMOKING MORONS in the last five years:

1) Sitting in front of me at AU football games.  One asshole lit up four or five different times at which point I informed him that if he did it again, I was going to shove the cigarette up his ass.
2) Concerts
3) Standing in line for movie tickets
4) Standing directly in the door of a non-smoking restaurant (because it was raining)
5) Standing outside my door at the office where I worked (when I had an outside door)
6) Numerous times inside non-smoking restaurants. 
7) At a park watching fireworks

Need I go on?  In almost every situation, the request to please desist with the cigarettes was met with ill-inormed rants about "AmuriCAN freedoms"  and other such drivel.

I recognize that a lot of these inconsiderate smokers are responsible for initiating this militant intolerance.  I agree with you there, but you might want to consider some creativity in dealing with them.  In particular, I'd recommend learning to deal with it in a way that doesn't empower a police-state.  Perhaps, you can move.  Perhaps, you can encourage them to move.  Perhaps, rather than demanding that they desist in a rude or offensive manner as most inconsiderate non-smokers demand, you should consider offering a polite comment that you appreciate their desire to enjoy tobacco products and that you would also hope that they appreciate the fact that you don't enjoy tobacco products.  Offer to buy them a drink...  Try a little civility and consider their perspective before you get pissed and shoot your mouth off or call on the nanny-state to protect your sensitive little nose.  And, if you really don't think that civility would work with the clientele in the establishments where you encounter these, I suggest that you stop visiting those places.  Again, it's a pretty simple solution. 

Notice that the majority of those places you mentioned are outside?  Are you really serious?  Outside?  If a smoker is 15 feet away from you, is it really that bad?  Are you incapable of moving?  I know; why should you be the one to move?  Well, it's sort of like when the neighborhood begins to take a downturn.  The smart ones get out early.  The foolish ones stick it out and watch as their property loses value to the point where they're sitting in an upside-down mortgage.  Then, they whine, cry and bitch blaming everyone else but themselves for their circumstances.  Natural order...  Darwinism...  Let nature take its’ course.  Stupidity should be painful! 

By the way, when do we go after perfumes, after-shave and other equally offensive situations?  I hate walking into a "public" restroom and smelling the over-powering scent of urine, puke and shit.  Perhaps, we should ban those activities in "public" as well?  How do you like the fresh scent of a diesel engine as those trucks drive by your table at your restaurant's outdoor seating area?  What about other offensive odors?  Some of these Europeans and Middle Eastern folks don't exactly shower regularly over here.  My eyes literally began to water as I walked by a group of Muslims in CDG the other day.  When are we going to do something about that?  It begins to get ridiculous if you extend your position to its’ logical extent.  I just avoid those situations as much as possible.  It's pretty damn simple. 

We've said it all before.  I've shared my opinion, and you've shared yours.  I really don't like smoke probably about as much as you.  There are some places that I find intolerable, and like you, I avoid them.  In some cases, I've found that my cigars help me to deal with excessive cigarette smoke, but when I don't have a cigar, I just have to avoid those places altogether.  By the way, that's also true of some of the outdoor venues that you listed.  If you're going to be in close quarters with potential smokers, you should probably reconsider the venue.  I do...  Why should you impose your concept of "clean air" on others?