The constitutional court is to rule on the legality of German smoking bans

It is totally acceptable to ban smoking in public places.However, if there is such a thing as "consenting adults" then it is difficult to understand why such consent should not be applied to smoking as well, in bars, etc. where owners, employees and patrons are consenting smokers. Nobody is forced to join, there are plenty of other choices.

isn't the whole point that:
(1) smoking is a choice.
(2) it severely damages your health (cancer, emphysema, etc).
(3) we live in a compassionate society.

and so smokers get life-long diseases, earlier in life, that are extremely expensive to care for. and they can't pay for it. they need help. and in our compassionate socities, we do help. we don't say:

"told you so. you are an adult. you chose to smoke knowing the risks. now, live (die) with the consequences."

most smokers become a major burden on society.

this is similar to the problem with emergency room care.
some people have major accidents, they need immediate help. there is no time to ask questions. later, if we learn the patient cannot pay for his emergency care what do we do? throw him in debtors prison? no. what happens is i pay more for my own medical care.

now, my paying higher medical bills because of this intractable problem of ER treatment is fair.

my paying higher medical bills because you knowingly chose to smoke is _not_ fair. and these anti-smoking laws are a way to right this wrong.

the BEST way to solve the anti-smoking law debate is to allow insurance companies to have four classes of health and life insurance policies:
(1) one for people who smoke.
(2) one for obese people.
(3) one for persons with normal BMI.
(4) one for people who run triathlon / marathon.

for each policy, insurance companies can charge whatever they want.

that would be fair.
that would stop people from smoking.
but for obvious reasons that is not practical.
so we have anti-smoking laws.

seansheep:the argument of losing a job is not convincing. There is a huge number of bars/restaurants/cafes, almost everywhere in the world and a shortage of staff to boot. If two third of the population prefer non-smoking establishments there are ample job opportunities for workers in such businesses. The employees who are smokers will find a job in places that allow smoking. It is all a question of "live and let live". The terrorism of non smokers vis-a-vis smokers is not justified.

Good for Germany. As someone who enjoys the super clean Canadian air in public spaces, I was shocked by the smoke in Frankfurt International two years ago. I was there recently and could fully appreciate the difference that the smoking ban made. Yet the huge proportion of people that smoke everywhere still makes visits to Germany (and the rest of Europe for that matter) rather unpleasant for non-smokers.

there should be no more public funding for smoking related cancers.
smokers should be kicked-off group insurance plans and forced to buy their own insurance.
if you don't want a nanny, good luck.
thank you.

suma sin laude, I am not sure Canada is an awfully good example to follow.After all, it even earns ridicule on the Simpsons' show for blandness.

with regard to what i wrote below, i could be completely
wrong. that's just how i think about it. otherwise,
let people smoke, eat transfat, etc. as much as they want.
i am all for legalizing marijuana, cocaine, meth,
prostitution, etc. but, you must deal with the consequences.

Yes, Dave W., you are completely wrong. The state has no business to interfere with the lifestyle of citizens, as long as it is within legal boundaries and does not disturb others. And yes, many smokers die earlier which is a relief for health care costs and pension payouts.

my.opinion: I believe the regulations are mainly aimed at maintaining the atmosphere for employees, who currently face the choice of exposing themselves to large amounts of carcinogens, or losing a job. By human nature, the short term wins over the long term. The by-product of this happens to be a nicer environment for the majority of people who don't smoke.

Todays verdict: it is unconstitutional to ban smoking selectively. In one-room-pubs it will be the owner's decision to either allow or ban smoking, as is already the case in Spain, Portugal and Austria etc. Common sense has ruled!

Unfortunately, the hypnosis of pedestrians at traffic lights on empty roads in Germany is compounded by the presence of police officers fining those who don´t wait for the little green man. In certain areas, school children are sent on duty to glare disapprovingly at nonconformists and thank good citizens for obeying the rules. Perhaps this form of law enforcement would be more effective if it were applied in the noble quest for a smokeless society.

To my.opinion:You mention that the state has no business to interfere with the lifestyle of citizens, as long as it is within legal boundaries and does not disturb others. Leaving aside the discussion whether it's not the state's role to set those legal boundaries, most scientists seem to agree that passive smoking is harmful. You also mentions that those who don't want to smoke can work in/visit another bar. The problem is that smokers are addicts, and the cost to them of not smoking is far greater than the (short time) cost to non-smokers of being in a smokers bar. Thus, without a ban, my experience is that without a ban, 95% of bars allow smoking, because if a group of ten people include one smoker, they'll end up going to a bar allowing it.

The sad fact is that many bars and pubs have closed their doors as a result of the bans, over 900 in Ireland alone! This is right on track with the RWJF's agenda. Obesity is next. There is a bill proposed in Mississippi banning restaurants from serving anyone who appears overweight. The RWJF's agenda site doesn't hide the fact that they are going after smoking, obesity, and alcohol. They stand to gain billions of dollars for Johnson & Johnson, which they are the largest shareholder, aiding those affected by these bans by selling them their products. Our Constitutional Republic has become a joke. We do not live in a democracy as many believe, we are not supposed to be mob-ruled. The majority ruling the minority is not what our founding fathers wanted and wrote the constitution accordingly. This has been completely forgotten by the ban movement, and if this insanity is not stopped, our ways of life are doomed. In the UK, the NHS is debating whether smokers or overweight people should even receive treatment due to their lifestyle. Is this where we may be heading? Anti-smokers who are overweight might be in for a rude awakening soon! Wake up world!

Smoking foes can believe the tobacco lobby's involvement all they want, the truth is that the smoking bans money trail leads directly back to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a NON-PROFIT organization that controls most of Johnson & Johnson who stand to PROFIT from the sales of smoking cessation products. After all, tobacco IS their competition. What a smoke screen that humanity has fallen for, all in the name of corporate greed! Wake up world!

Smoking is proven to be bad for your health and one doesn't have to go far to see the anecdotal evidence. That being said, governments around the world have shown much zeal when putting in smoking bans. What disturbs me is how far the anti-smoking lobby and governments are willing to go. As I write, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is proposing no-smoking in outdoor public areas around sports venues. They have already issued a law banning smoking in cars with children (since when has a car become government property?). Where will the government stop? If they are not willing to ban tobacco outright, they will have to make some accomodation as they do for disabled people. Not that I agree with the Germans, but hopefully they believe in civic rights more than my country.

I quote from an article written by Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr., who is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.

"In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers."

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.