View Full Version : Ha! Now all you evil smokers get it here in Germany...!
Skybird
12-20-07, 10:49 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,27504,00.html
Serves you well, drug addict!! :lol:
Why and how:
A restaurateur in Lower Saxony has refused to be deterred by the state's new ban on smoking in bars and restaurants: He has sawed three holes in the wall so patrons can smoke "outside."
A German restaurateur has come up with a novel solution to a new ban on smoking in restaurants: He has made three holes in the wall of his restaurant so that customers can smoke "outside."
Michael Windisch, proprietor of the "Maltermeister Turm" restaurant in Goslar in the state of Lower Saxony, was frustrated by the state's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, which was introduced on Aug. 1 (more...) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,497405,00.html). His solution was to get out the saw.
With the "smoking point," customers can put their heads through the large hole in the middle and one hand through each of the two smaller side holes. The patrons can then enjoy a cigarette "outside," without having to leave the comfort of the inn.
The idea could well catch on across the country: Several of Germany's 16 federal states are to introduce smoking bans on Jan. 1, 2008, including Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia and the city states of Berlin and Hamburg.
We now need a bin with ready eggs and tomatoes outside the restaurant! :smug: :sunny:
Guillotine metaphors ahoy!
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/pillory-stocks.jpg
:lol:
Wow. I can't say I've seen it around here (there's a similar ban in place in Ontario), but I wonder if that idea might come here too.
Less likely though. I know local authorities often push the ban to be even harsher; I know in many places you're not supposed to smoke within 10m of the entrance; here in Ottawa there's been a recent by-law passed that you can't smoke within something like a 10m radius of a bus stop even :doh:
antikristuseke
12-20-07, 11:41 AM
This is a really stupid solution to a problem that need not exist. It should be left to the discretion of the owner of the establish,ment wether to allow smoking there or not. Now that being said, Im quite a heavy smoker and i dont really mind the smoking ban in bars here in Estonia, it isnt all that difficult to go out for a smoke.
JSLTIGER
12-20-07, 11:49 AM
Smoking is illegal in restaurants here in Florida, and I can say, having grown up in Pennsylvania and attending school in North Carolina that my lungs have never been happier. I can't possibly explain how nice it is to walk into a restaurant that does not have the blue-ish haze of cigarette smoke...
Skybird
12-20-07, 01:29 PM
Well, I welcome the ban for all non-private places. That said, I don't think that 3-hole-solution is meant to be honest, but just an orginial form of protest. In another case a restaurant owner has declared his establishement to be a smoker's club - non-smoker had no permission to enter. :D the local authorities checked the case - and said it is okay. - Poll in recent months showed that a stable majority of Germans welcome the ban of smoking in restaurants, and public buildings. Even not few smokers understand it.
AntEater
12-20-07, 01:50 PM
Btw, that is the restaurant, or at least part of it.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:MaltermeisterTurm.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/MaltermeisterTurm.jpg/180px-MaltermeisterTurm.jpg
The Maltermeister Tower, a 15th century watchtower on the Rammelsberg mines in Goslar, where copper and lead was mined from 900 until 1988.
Was mostly used as the office/workshop of the Maltermeister, the carpenter of the mines.
So the medieval overtones of that smoking arrangement fit the place.
Today a museum...
Spoon 11th
12-20-07, 02:19 PM
Guillotine metaphors ahoy!
I was thinking goatse-picture painted on the wall.
I don't mind smoking bans inside but do you know how many bands i've gone to this year and not been able to get a pass-out to go outside for a smoke?
That is where my protests come from, i'm a smoker and it's my God damn right to smoke if I choose. Fair enough people don't want to breath passive smoke, as I said I understand banning smoking inside for public places. I don't even smoke inside my own home! But when it comes to the point that I am not even able to go outside for a puff I'm not going to be a happy camper.
RIOT!!!
Skybird
12-20-07, 07:42 PM
But when it comes to the point that I am not even able to go outside for a puff I'm not going to be a happy camper.
:-j Maybe now you can imagine how non-smokers often feel when wishing to meet people in a bar or restaurant without needing to passively smoke! ;)
In general, I usually tend to agree with the originator principle. It is so simple and easy that even children usually understand it.
antikristuseke
12-20-07, 07:47 PM
I don't mind smoking bans inside but do you know how many bands i've gone to this year and not been able to get a pass-out to go outside for a smoke?
That is where my protests come from, i'm a smoker and it's my God damn right to smoke if I choose. Fair enough people don't want to breath passive smoke, as I said I understand banning smoking inside for public places. I don't even smoke inside my own home! But when it comes to the point that I am not even able to go outside for a puff I'm not going to be a happy camper.
RIOT!!!
I share pretty much the same sentiments.
I don't mind smoking bans inside but do you know how many bands i've gone to this year and not been able to get a pass-out to go outside for a smoke?
You can still go out for a smoke.
Getting back in for music is the hard part.
kiwi_2005
12-20-07, 08:43 PM
why doesn't he build an outside part for the smokers, thats what they done here when the no smoking law started. Pubs/Clubs/resturants built outside cafe areas for the smokers cause 60% of their customers are smokers. Keeps both sides happy and the owner bringing in the money :)
But when it comes to the point that I am not even able to go outside for a puff I'm not going to be a happy camper. :-j Maybe now you can imagine how non-smokers often feel when wishing to meet people in a bar or restaurant without needing to passively smoke! ;)
In general, I usually tend to agree with the originator principle. It is so simple and easy that even children usually understand it.
Yeah now the people in bars can smell urine, sweat and stale beer...
Smoking has not been allowed in restaurants here for awhile so that doesn't phase me. As I said it's not that I disagree with the measures, I don't smoke in my own home, it's just that when you can't even leave an establishment in order to have a smoke I feel it's breaching my personal freedoms and my right to do what I wish. More proof we are NOT FREE but live in a democracy.
Fair enough you don't smoke and don't like the smell but I do and i'm sick of being treated like a second class citizen because of it.
If you couldn't leave the establishment then it would be a breach of your freedom, but
you can leave anywhere, anytime.
When you pay to enter, you pay to enter once.
If you don't like that arrangement, then you are free not to partake in it.
It in no way discriminates against smokers as the rule is the same for everyone.
Ducimus
12-20-07, 09:18 PM
Im all for smoking bans in public places like resturants, shops, and the like. I used to smoke - heavily. These days i can't stake one drag off a "coffin nail" without getting sick the next day. So someone smoking around me makes me cough pretty quick.
I degress on one point though. Bars. Most people in bars smoke anyway. I used to have a beer in one hand, and a smoke in the other. THey go hand in hand. When i quite drinking, is when i quit smoking (associated habits). Ode to nasty ass high in tar content 88's. How i don't miss getting up in the morning and coughing up black s**t in the toilet after smoking a pack or two from the previous night.
I always think it's a shame when my mate can't smoke in a bar or pub.
But at the same time I remember that if the chemicals in the air where not from
smoking, but from some kind of chemical leak in a pipe, the place would be shut down
as a health risk quickly and no one should have to leave their job behind the bar
because it's a health risk to them.
If you couldn't leave the establishment then it would be a breach of your freedom, but
you can leave anywhere, anytime.
When you pay to enter, you pay to enter once.
If you don't like that arrangement, then you are free not to partake in it.
It in no way discriminates against smokers as the rule is the same for everyone.
True but you are conveniently missing the point that if I leave I can't get back in and that kind of wastes the normally large amounts of money I spent on the concert.
The lack of freedom is how the government is getting worse, soon I won't be able to have a smoke in my own car, on a footpath or in a park.
They bring these laws in but don't care about how it effects tax payer's like me. If in the past restraunts where required to have non smoking areas, why can't they require places to supply an area for smokers to smoke in?
All I can say is if you enter a place where they have smoking and you don't like it, YOU CAN LEAVE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!! Banning smoking in all pubs and clubs is not the solution and it's pure BS. I'm sure a pub that didn't allow smokers would bring in a large amount of people because of that, but why can't I run a pub next door designed to attract people who do smoke? Sure i'll need a special license and ensure proper ventilation but wtf not? Isn't that what a freemarket economy is based on? Well in theory anyway.
All I know is this is a movement I think is good, but implemented very poorly and the whole bloody world is infected. Good intentions don't always lead to good results.
Ducimus
12-20-07, 10:12 PM
>>Good intentions don't always lead to good results
See Prohibition.
>>Good intentions don't always lead to good results
See Prohibition.
Bingo!
Thinking about it my big problem is with venues not caring about it's smoking customers more than the laws but hey, being an old punk rocker it's hard to stop being against the establishment. :arrgh!:
If you couldn't leave the establishment then it would be a breach of your freedom, but
you can leave anywhere, anytime.
When you pay to enter, you pay to enter once.
If you don't like that arrangement, then you are free not to partake in it.
It in no way discriminates against smokers as the rule is the same for everyone.
True but you are conveniently missing the point that if I leave I can't get back in and that kind of wastes the normally large amounts of money I spent on the concert.
If you pay to go in to a place and you want to go in twice, then of course you have to pay twice.
you are paying to go in, your not paying for a day ticket.
All I can say is if you enter a place where they have smoking and you don't like it, YOU CAN LEAVE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!
It wasn't banned in work places because people didn't like it. It was banned because
it creates a potential health hazard.
You could argue that people should be free to put the health of their clients, patrons
and staff at hazard if their clients, patrons and staff are happy with that, however,
under that logic it would be acceptable for a restaurant to have rats in the kitchen
as long as no one complained. Those that don't like the rats can "LEAVE AND GO
SOMEWHERE ELSE!!".
Then there are problems with having to sack staff because their health has deteriorated
for one reason or another and they can no longer work in a smokey environment.
If you pay to go in to a place and you want to go in twice, then of course you have to pay twice.
you are paying to go in, your not paying for a day ticket.
You're just being difficult here. It's obvious that they SHOULD give pass-outs for smokers, you just don't care as your not affected. Fair enough but I however am affected and care.
It wasn't banned in work places because people didn't like it. It was banned because
it creates a potential health hazard.
You could argue that people should be free to put the health of their clients, patrons
and staff at hazard if their clients, patrons and staff are happy with that, however,
under that logic it would be acceptable for a restaurant to have rats in the kitchen
as long as no one complained. Those that don't like the rats can "LEAVE AND GO
SOMEWHERE ELSE!!".
Then there are problems with having to sack staff because their health has deteriorated
for one reason or another and they can no longer work in a smokey environment.
You are 100% correct in this.
Smokers shouldn't expect much sympathy as time goes on because it's a habit that is quickly dying (No pun intended) out.
The only thing i really can't stand is how our government taxes it so much. If they achieve their stated objective of getting everyone to quit the loss of that revenue is going to have to be made up from somewhere...
Skybird
12-21-07, 05:10 AM
If you pay to go in to a place and you want to go in twice, then of course you have to pay twice.
you are paying to go in, your not paying for a day ticket.
You're just being difficult here. It's obvious that they SHOULD give pass-outs for smokers, you just don't care as your not affected. Fair enough but I however am affected and care.
But if I pay and go in, and leave - I am needing to pay a second time, too. Leturm's somewhat academical point is that it is not discriminatory, since it is not different for smokers and non-smokers. Although I agree that it might not be the best arrangement. They probably do it for practcial reasons like this, to avoid person A leaving, hendle over the tricket to person B, and B then goes in without ever having payed at all.
Mikey_Wolf
12-21-07, 05:23 AM
Some young women I think look quite hot when they smoke. I guess its that whole notion where there is smoke there is fire.
Skybird
12-21-07, 06:40 AM
Some young women I think look quite hot when they smoke. I guess its that whole notion where there is smoke there is fire.
Yes?. Completely the opposite here. Ignoring the bad smell of her skin and hair and bad taste of her lips from cigarettes, just thinking of the looks: a cigarette in an elseway beautiful girl's/woman's face immediately let's me turn away and let interest and lust :lol: fall to zero - it looks so very ugly like black lipstick and neon-green hair.
Whhhooo there!
Now I don't like a smokey flavored lass any more than you SB, but what have you got
against neon-green hair?!
Granted, anyone would prefer blue, but green still odes it for me!
Hi folkes,
I ( non -smoker)
am sitting *right now* (UMTS cards/notebooks will save us all) in my favorite pub in Europe/D/Niedersachsen (the REAL name of our federal country :rock: F$/& You! calling it something else, like lower... WE ARE NOT lower-..something .... call us Niedersachsen, if you please!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedersachsen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedersachsenlied (german only :oops:)
And as a non smoker I can asure you all: I enjoy (!!!!!) being in my pub and my clothes will NOT smell like a trash dump afterwards...
****Life coverage**
Me: sitting at the bar
Non-smoking fellows: sitting everywhere
Smokers: Sitting for a smoke or a talk(somtimes me=passive) in a seperate area near the entrance (whole bar crew is missing for 5 minutes every hour :rotfl:)
... and returning after having a smoke to the table of their friends...
So the smokers have a little walk, ... and I get to know some of them ... very friendly.... (girl-friend is now outside, for her smoke.. :lol: If I would want, no problem to join her, but I don't want to...)
..
say what?
It works!!!!!! :yep:
TteFAboB
12-21-07, 06:14 PM
It will look even more funny when people decide to have fatty meal, a few years from now.
The perils of socialized medicine. Governmental nannyism.
We introduced this ban in Norway 4 years ago. In the beginning they were a lot of sceptics and many of the same arguments that you see here where beeing used. But now 4 years after everyone is enjoing the ban,the smokers have no problems with going out to smoke, and then come in again. Like everyone else they don't pay twice. I study in Germany(Aachen) and will look forward to not having my clothes smell like smoke the morning thereafter.
As a sidenote, after the ban was introduced in Norway alot of people switched to chewing tobacco or completely stopped, going out in -20 C every time you needed a smoke was a good motivation ;) .
Skybird
12-22-07, 07:10 AM
The perils of socialized medicine. Governmental nannyism.
The benefit of justice. Implementation of originator principle.
-----
New today:
http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/r4/dl-artikel2.cgi?artikelnr=26923&mode=print
Translating only the highlights of that professor's statements:
The damage for the German economy caused by smoke-related disease and BCc (broncial carcinom) is calculated to be around 20 billion euros per year (2002). the costs for a typical therapy is over 75.000 euros for medication alone (add surgery, hospital time, doctor's fees etc). In the US, BC is on first place on the list of lethal carcinom types. In Germany, 40.000 die of smoke-caused BC every year (other s moke-related diseases not counted). Passive smoking in jobs with smoke-poisened working rooms increases the passive-smoker's health risks significantls. Smokers bear an 20-30 times increases risk to develope BC. Even if you stop regular smoking, you decrease the risk, but you never bring the risk down to that of a non-smoker again. The link between BC and smoking cannot be denied and is proven for example by a meta-study of 59 related studies. Nobody would try to remove safety-belts in cars with an argument of belts redcucing the individual rights and liberties - it is too clear how much thy have helped to reduce the number of killed people in traffic accidents. Many smokers react with ignrorance when it comes to smo0king prohibition, but where the individual is not suffienctly aware of the damage he is doing and even more does most substantila damage to others, there must be a reaction from the state to protect the latter. Addcits tend to talk down their problem, but as Jenny Holzer once said: "Protect me from what I want".
I would say that it is time that finally not only the freedoms of smokers get payed attention to, but - without wantin t to demonise anyone - that they are being hold responsible for what they are causing, and that the rights of non-smokers, including their right to be protected from smokers without needing to reduce their behavioral patterns and habits, must be ranked higher. Originator principle: smokers cause massive financial damage, and they do harm to others, damage their health and life expectancy, people who at work cannot avoid it and in their free time can avoid it only at the price of not going into this restaurant or that bar. Why must they reduce their living ways so that others can claim additonal rights and freedoms, wehre as the originator of a problem should be the one correcting it and redcuing his behavior accordingly? Since the smoker is causing the problemn, it is up to him to face the negative consequences by having to avoid a bar or restaurant, and not living the way he wants at work. Smoker's rights do not weigh heavier than that of non-smokers. And regarding smoking: they even do not weigh as heavy as that of non-smokers: originator principle.
Penelope_Grey
12-22-07, 07:51 AM
Well I've quit smoking now so don't give a double feck about the ban anymore....
Tchocky
12-22-07, 08:20 AM
The perils of socialized medicine. Governmental nannyism.
Hmm. The usual idea behind smoking bans is smokers don't have the right to impose their choice on others who don't have a choice (bar staff, waiters etc).
Skybird
12-22-07, 09:06 AM
Well I've quit smoking now so don't give a double feck about the ban anymore....
Good acchievement! :up: As i promised some months back, I hereby declare in public that I am impressed! :yep: :D
Penelope_Grey
12-22-07, 09:26 AM
Well I've have the odd wobble once or twice... but I've cracked it I reckon.
Cheers!
>>Good intentions don't always lead to good results
See Prohibition.
There ya go.... well said Duc. :up:
Don't infringe on my right to smoke in the Great Outdoors. If you do then stop cars and trucks from smoking too....which ain't gonna happen as they all give off smoke. And stop the power generating stations using coal, and factories from smoking too. That ain't gonna happen either. You can cut it down but it won't stop it.
The perils of socialized medicine. Governmental nannyism. Hmm. The usual idea behind smoking bans is smokers don't have the right to impose their choice on others who don't have a choice (bar staff, waiters etc).
I was actually referring to FAboBs comment...
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.