Enough is enough!! Free smoke, for free citizens.

I consider myself as a quite tolerant person (my girlfriend normally does not agree with me on this issue). If somebody does not want to smoke, why not; nobody forces him/her to do it. No smoking in public places like planes, trains, administration offices… that is o.k. for me. I even stopped smoking in my office because my colleague felt somehow molested. But you give those nonsmoking bastards an inch and they will take a mile. I am really fed up with this discussion about prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants. This is supposed to be a free country.

At least it was as far as I can remember (from time to time I am losing my faith in this axiom). We overcame the Nazis’ dictatorship (with a lot of help from the Americans, Russians, British and even the French). We overcame the dictatorship of the proletariat (with a lot of help from a Russian guy). Now we are threatened by the dictatorship of the non-smokers. Who’s gonna help us this time? I guess we should not count that much on Cuba. The Irish, the Spanish, the Italians suffer under the same repression yet.

“Raucher wie Nichtraucher werden mit einer solchen Kennzeichnungspflicht gleichermaßen stigmatisiert. Die Trennung (Apartheid) von Nichtrauchern und Rauchern ist genauso abzulehnen wie ein Davidstern “R” für die Lokale. Der Gesundheitsschutz vor dem giftigen Passivrauch ist nicht verhandelbar. Er gilt für jeden und für alle Beschäftigten, unabhängig wo sie arbeiten. Dieser unsinnige Vorschlag dient nicht dem Nichtraucherschutz, da er die Anzahl der Nichtraucherlokale nicht erhöhen wird.”

I quoted the previous paragraph here:

I am not a friend of CDU politicians at all. Most of them deserve to burn in hell (just to demonstrate my tolerant mind). But this is really intolerable.

What is this bosh about Apartheid? Apartheid does not mean to show people this is a bar where smoking is forbidden and in this one it is not. Apartheid would mean if it would be forbidden for smokers to go in a nonsmokers bar and for nonsmokers to go in a smokers bar (and if you had not the chance to convert from a smoker to a non-smoker annd vice versa).

In my opinion these comparisons are stomping on the graves of millions of murdered Jews and all those people in South Africa, the United States or wherever people had or have to suffer under Apartheid.
Those people are afraid that Mr. Wulff’s suggestion will not increase the amount of Nonsmoker’s bars.
If you really think there is a need for such bars, well then why don’t you open up one?
There is an old law in countries attached to liberal markets. Demand determines supply.

You non smoking bastards just can’t stand that you are boring suckers. No one wants to go to your healthy bars with you. Not even the less boring non-smokers. They too prefer to go to the smokers’ bars.
So your problem is that you are sitting alone in your non-smoking bars. You are bored. You decided to prohibit the fun other people are having. I’d rather die than to be forced to go to a nonsmokers bar.
To quote the NRA’s Charlton Heston: “From my cold dead hands…”.

So it is either me or you. Who is going to visit a bar in future. Or we accept that this planet is too small for smokers and nonsmokers to coexist. We go separate ways. And we let the people decide which bars they prefer. Why the hell not, mark bars as smokers or nonsmokers bars?

You go your way we go ours. I won’t miss you.

18 Comments so far

  1. till (unregistered) on February 24th, 2007 @ 7:34 pm

    But Fidel is rolling those awesome cigars.

  2. macpro (unregistered) on February 24th, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
  3. Nuh (unregistered) on February 24th, 2007 @ 8:15 pm

    First of all, we weren’t “helped” by the allies, but Germany was utterly destroyed (for example your once beautiful Berlin), defeated and its citizens enslaved for years with plenty of looting, abduction and forced labor (male persons >=13) as well as rape. Nice help, that! History is truly written by the victorious.

    Second, you can smoke as much as you want, but you should realize that nauseous mix of tobacco smoke with burnt paper is an olfactory holocaust (sorry, heh) and extremely unhealthy too. If you would be able to forget your addiction for a few weeks, you’d notice how direful that smoke really is.

    That said, I am against the ban, but you shouldn’t act as if there was nothing wrong with giving other people lung cancer. I do smoke cigars and pipe. But cigarette smoking is just a bad habit. The taste is weak and the burnt paper simply stinks. I’d say, ban sale of cigarettes ;).

  4. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 2:52 am

    We just did that here in DC, and I can safely say that today I went to a couple of places that I wouldn’t have gone to otherwise because cigarette smoke makes me nauseous. (Sorry, Nuh, cigars and whatnot still smell like burnt ass.)

    I think what bothers me most about smoking is that it leaves its effects on those who don’t smoke. If I’m having a beer, or even swallowing some pills, the only people who experience effects related to their physical person is me. If I drink, I get drunk. If I take a percoset, I get drugged. If I smoke, though, I smell bad, and so does anyone else in the room, not to mention any object in the room.

    Smoking is a selfish act in a public bar, getting you high, but leaving me to stink to high heaven.

  5. William Thirteen (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 11:51 am

    smoking is very profitable for the tobacco companies – and it is for this reason that there are difficulties in restricting the use of tobacco in public spaces, not because any politicians care about anyone’s rights(smoker or nonsmoker). the tobacco companies spend lots of cash to buy these politicians. of course the healthcare costs of the smoking related diseases are later borne by the taxpayer and health insurance customers. having been both a smoker and a nonsmoker i think the best idea is to find public spaces that are well ventilated and to have a bit of compassion for one’s fellow human being – be they smoker or non. that being said, i think that anyone who smokes while in a confined area with a child really needs to look at their behaviour….

  6. Tom (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 1:22 pm

    In response to NUH. So you think we weren’t helped by the allies.
    I don’t. I am very grateful to every allied soldier that helped to kick the Nazis butts. Even if some of them were misbehaving. I think you should never forget to mention what enormous crimes Germans committed all over Europe before when you are talking about crimes allied soldiers committed in Germany. They did not start the war it was us or at least some of our ancestors that did. I am sure 99.9% of those soldiers would have preferred to stay at home, marry a girl from their neighbourhood and have some children than to fight their way through Europe and maybe rape a woman in Berlin. There is nothing any German has to complain about. The allieds did not destroy Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg… because they had fun in doing so. They destroyed those cities because Germany, the Germans, we, our ancestors, or however you want to call it forced them to. It was Goebbels who declared total war. Not Churchill, not Stalin, not DeGaulle, not Roosevelt. It was Germans who enslaved, killed, raped all over Europe. So please don’t complain if some of those guys that went through hell to liberate Germany, Europe, the World from fascism took their personal revenge.

    Concerning the smoking issue. Nobody is forced to go into a smokers bar, nobody is forced to work there.

  7. Dadal (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 1:57 pm

    I’m tired of having my whole cloth stink like hell every time I leave a bar or club. I’m tired of headaches and red eyes because smokers can’t get lay of the damn cigarettes for only some minutes. I’m tired of ignorant smokers that don’t care if their smoke goes directly in your face. I’m tired of smokers that think they are defenders of freedom and rebels. So Tom: Please go into your smokers bar – by the way, smokers bar are only under consideration in two bundeslands, berlin not being one of them – you come of as an asshole anyway. We “non smoking bastards” won’t miss you and this “non smoking bastard” and “boring sucker” unsubcribes from this blog.

  8. Tom (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

    Well, Dadal why do you guys always have to be the missionary way? Nobody forces you to go into a bar where smoking is allowed. Just go to a bar where it is forbidden.
    All I’m asking for is that the owners of bars should be the ones to decide if they allow smoking or not. And not the government.
    Then everybody can vote with his/her feet. If bar owners recognize that it would be more profitable to forbid smoking they will do it. That’s how capitalism works.
    O.K. you’re right I did start the insulting language. So it is fine for me if you call me an asshole. I don’t consider myself a rebel, nicotine addict is the better word. I know quite well that Berlin does not considerate to allow smokers bars. Probably that is exactly what got me so upset (no it isn’t. What really got me upset and what’s still making me angry is the usage of the words “Apartheid” and “Davidsstern” in the article I quoted).
    I can’t keep you from unsubscribing, so good night and good luck (as a famous smoker and defender of freedom used to say).

  9. till (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 3:53 pm

    I wish someone would try to ban drinking in bars. What a ralley that would make. ;-)

    All things aside. I think grown up people are entitled to do what they want. Be it smoking or drinking.

    The difference is that by drinking you (usually) don’t harm others – then again, that happens just as often (hint, hint: driving under the influence) – I’d like to see the figures on people getting into accidents where drinking is involved vs. those of people who die because of passive smoking – but that still doesn’t make people ban drinking.

    I see how people get annoyed by smoke and I can relate to it as well – whenever I have a cold, or for example I seem to be allergic to certain smokes (Gauloises) and the chemicals they contain.

    Still, I would never force law upon people so they stop it. This is hypocritism at its best.

    Especially because smokers finance a great deal of the health care system, they bring in taxes and what not, still – people are treated like murderers by non-smoking extremists because they dare to smoke in public places. The message here is, please pay, but keep your habbit somewhere else where we can’t see it?

    And to all the people who feel offended:
    Try to reason with us. This was written to make you come out of the closet. Much better than unsubscribing and feeling offended. Life’s tough.

  10. William Thirteen (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 4:40 pm

    good point regarding the tax revenues from tobacco till – it would an interesting comparison to see if they equal the tobacco related healthcare costs to the public treasury. there is a balance somewhere between the rights of the smokers to engage in their smoking and the rights of the nonsmokers to be free from smoke related toxins – the question is where is that balance to be found. the extremists on all sides simply ‘cloud’ the discussion with emotional ‘toxins’…

  11. max mey (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 5:33 pm

    the best decision is:
    1. allow to smoke in bars and clubs
    2. forbid smoking in restaurants, if they only have one dining room.
    really, i smoke every now and then, but i hate it when i am sitting in a restaurant and try to enjoy a meal while somebody next to me is smoking. oh man, i hate it. that is so fuckin’ annoying.

  12. Dadal (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

    Okay, I get the use of over dramatic and provocative style to achieve some form of honest discussion. But if you call non-smokers “bastards” and “boring suckers”, you go too far and don’t lay the grounds for a fruitful discussion but achieve the rather opposite.

    Also I find it quite ironic that you start your post mentioning the dictatorship of the Nazis and then go on to criticize the use of inappropriate political comparisons just one paragraph later.

  13. amazingd (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 8:01 pm

    @ dadal
    i totally agree.

  14. Tom (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

    Hi Dadal, I really appreciate that you are still here talking to me.
    Of course nonsmokers are no boring suckers. And that they aren’t bastards is beyond discussion. The article was meant to be polemic and I think that worked out fine. You’re right maybe the discussion is not really fruitful yet, but at least it is a discussion. So lets start to make it better. The facts are that smoking is forbidden almost everywhere in public life yet. I don’t mind that at all. In contrary I appreciate it. Now the anti-smoking campaign is trying to give us the rest. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars. I am fine with smoking being prohibited in restaurants. As well as it will be hard for me to omit my after meal cigarette which is about the second best tasting cigarette of them all. But I admit that there are far more reasons for not smoking than for smoking in a restaurant.
    But with Bars it is a completely different issue. I go to a bar to do unhealthy things. Drinking too much strong liquor, smoking too many cigarettes and listening to much too loud music. Prohibiting smoking in bars is exactly the same as prohibiting drinking or loud music to be played there. It would result in me and many others (Just have a look at the numbers here) not going there anymore. In the best case there might be emerging a subculture of illegal smokers bars (which definetly would be a pro anti-smoking argument). In the worst case smokers will increase homesmoking which is bad for the smokers children. Forget about that, we want to be fruitful. So in the first case there will be legal nonsmokers bars and illegal smokers bars (which is definetly more fun just because it is illegal). Nonsmokers being in the nonsmokers bars, smokers being in the smokers bars. In the second case nonsmokers will be in their bars, smokers will stay at home. Where the hell is the difference to having legal smokers and nonsmokers bars?

  15. bome (unregistered) on February 25th, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

    “Concerning the smoking issue. Nobody is forced to go into a smokers bar, nobody is forced to work there.”

    what a stupid statement

  16. Joe (unregistered) on February 26th, 2007 @ 8:43 pm

    I really don’t agree with this idea of people feeling separated/discriminated. It is about the person (unless what defines you is being a smoker) but rather where you can smoke. People will still go to bars and drink but when they want a cigarette, they’ll go outside – with or without their non-smoking friends and come back in a few minutes later. Experience in Ireland shows that both smokers and non-smokers are overwhelmingly happy at the clean air in pubs and restaurants now.

  17. Nuh (unregistered) on February 27th, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

    I don’t mind a bit of smoke but in many pubs it’s simply a bit much. If people smoked a cigarette every now and then, no problem. But these “bad habit chain smokers” ruin it. By the way, I certainly don’t go to a bar to get lung cancer. Still, I as I said I don’t support the ban but it is understandable.

    Oh and Tom, read up on the Rheinwiesenlager or forced labor in France. German men didn’t just walk home after the war. It was a systematic violation of the Geneva convention and in the case of the so-called POWs (many of them just kids) directed by leadership, not a few misbehaving soldiers (anyone who even suggests that obviously doesn’t have the slightest idea about what went on).
    The bombings were an attempt to both terrorize the population (Churchill himself spoke of terror) and simply a form of revenge, actually Stalin tried to persuade the British to finally start bombing military targets to help his soldiers.
    Of course I know who started the war, but you’re forgetting that we had a dictatorship and Britain had a democratic government. You don’t seem to expect a lot from democracy.

  18. Bryah from Berlin (unregistered) on February 28th, 2007 @ 8:53 am

    Hello Guys,

    this topic seems to make peoples heart burn and quite aggressive. Emotions are not the right base for discussion!

    I can understand why smokers are tired of hearing they harm peoples health and they need to have more tolerance. I know they do not have the ability being tolerant because of their addiction. Smoking is a very hard addiction. It is not fun or adventurous as the tabacco lobby tries to implant into peoples mind…

    We are now at the point where Smokers should respect the need of non-smokers, who have hard time being in front of smoke, getting breathing difficulties (even asthma) or other painful and unnice impacts by second hand smoke (at the end: LUNG CANCER or other types of Cancer, ask the WHO), wanting to have a place where they can go and not being molested by passive smoke very little second of life!

    It is not only about that it stinks or that people dislike it. It is about feeling physically weak – that is where intolerance starts. Smokers do not realize the deep impact of health because they do not care, if they would, they wouldn´t smoke – that´s it! The worse: they don´t even care about the health of children, pregnant women or sick persons. Even pregnant women smoke – this is criminal assault!

    Of Course it is about appartheid. Smokers separate non-smokers by saying they have the free choice going to a pub, restaurant or café for non-smokers. i don´t know where all the commentators live but i want everyone to refer at least 10-20 completely smoke free locations at their area, no system gastronomy like starbucks or others! And after that i will agree that i , as a non-smoker who ist impacted by passive smoke, have the choice!

    In Berlin the Situation looks like that:

    The “Nichtraucherführer”, a website where you can find non-smokers restaurants/café/bars/et cetera, counts in total 374 filed gastronomic companies. Therefrom are only max. 20 completely smoke free, not even 10 %. And over 50 to 70 are companies like McDonalds, Starbucks or Subway.

    The rest has non-smoking areas within the smokers: between 30 to 50 % of the place. Anyone should know smoke doesn´t stop at a non smokers table, or does it? It is like urinating in a swimming pool. Urinating into row 1 to 3 is allowed and at the others peeing is not permitted. What do you think? does it intermix?

    Anyways – smokers need to train their interaction toward non smokers. as long as they do not change their attitudes feeling disciminated(?) by passivsmokers, it will not come to an proper solution.

    If you want to know more about non smokers restaurants look at this site: http://www.melodicambience.com here you will find the complete offering in Berlin.

    Smokers are the ones which cause illness and inconvenience. To me it seems as if they were true softies crying out like a little child that does not get want it wants.

    Good luck to all,


Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.