Friday, November 28, 2008
Smoke under the water
There is an urban legend in Holland saying that Dutch people don't like bans, and the only way to let them follow a certain rule is to explain them its social utility.
I'm not sure if this is true, or if this is the case, but the smoking ban active in The Netherlands is definitely facing some comportamental problems.
It all started on July, 1th 2008, when also The Netherlands, one of the last Country in Europe to decide so, started to ban smoking tobacco from public closed places such as bar or restaurants.
In the Country of free Marijuana this sounded a bit weird (even if this is actually one of the few places where you could create some legal smoking rooms for almost all kind of smokers) and protests started as soon as the law was enforced.
On July, 15th dutch Café owners started to join a new religious movement called One and Universal Smokers Church of God whose worshippers are said to believe in the trinity of smoke, fire and ash and honour their god by smoking.
Dozens of bars owners asserted the Dutch constitution and European rules give it legitimacy under the right to freedom of religion.
But the government went on and the police started to give fines to those bars that let their costumers smoke inside.
Unfortunately the fine was not so high (300€ for the owner, nothing for the costumer) and it wasn't enough to persuade the bar owners.
What happened is that in many places owners put next to the door some collecting box, where costumers can throw some coins, to help pay for the potential fine.
In response, Health Minister Ab Klink decided to get tough.
In the future, he proposed, violations of the ban have to be treated as economic offences which would allow the authorities to impose fines as high as 16000€.
A lot of owners of cafes then started to strike, especially in the South.
Groups of cafe owners in cities such as Groningen, Tilburg and Breda have already agreed informally to ignore the ban.
Last weekend, cafe and bar owners in Den Bosch decided en masse to ignore it.
The war has started.
29 bars were sanctioned last weekend only in Den Bosch, while the minister announced that cafes which continue to defy the ban will be closed down for breaking competition laws (because they compete unfairly with cafes which are not breaking the law).
We'll see who'll win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ShareThis
Posts
9 comments:
A smoking ban means it is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property.
Butt 'weed' is OK?
Something is drastically wrong with this picture
The idea of the Dutch smoking ban in public places (such as bar, cafes and restaurant) started not to prevent non-smoking customers from inhaling other's smoke.
It is instead conceived for protecting the employees that work in such a place.
With this idea in mind, smoking was then banned from all indoor public places where there are people working.
So bars, cafes, restaurants, offices... and coffee shops.
And here is the trick.
The ban applies only for tobacco!
It's is in fact not allowed to smoke tobacco inside.
But if you smoke some other stuff that is legal in Holland (say Marijuana) without using tobacco, than you can do it.
This, added to the previous limitation that allowed you to smoke Marijuana only in particular places called coffee shops, leads to this conclusion: in coffee shops it is still legal to smoke joints, but only if they are pure (with no tobacco).
Besides sounding a bit hypocritical (they save the Marijuana market that here is very proficuos by masking it as a battle for freedom) it also looks contradictory to me from the logical point of view.
While it is true that for the smoker's health it is better to smoke as less tobacco as possible (it's the tobacco that gives addiction, not Marijuana), for people around you the worst part comes from you burning the rolling paper around the cigarette.
So the working condition for coffee shops employees after this ban is just a bit better, but not much.
It would be effective only if they would have forbid all kind of smoking from those places.
But then of course the whole market would have complain and there is no more sence of having a coffee shop.
So instead of banning tobacco only, which again sounds very odd to many, from my point of view they could have still kept this smoking ban from bars and restaurants, and they could have created smoking places (such as usual coffee shops) where people can go to smoke whatever they want (tobacco and Marijuana) and have a the or a beer.
In this case, employees of such places would not be health-safe from smoke, but, I mean, if you apply for a job in a coffee shop you don't expect to work in a smoking free environment, do you?
Sono d'accordo, come ci sono i coffee shops, dove è legale fumare marijuana, dovrebbero esserci dei "tobacco" coffee dove chi vuole si avvelena da se medesimo. Ovviamente ci dovrebbe lavorare solo chi ama inalare fumo passivo.
Per quanto mi riguarda, W il vecchio ministro Sirchia, l'unica legge sensata fatta in quel governo. Così finalmente anch'io posso frequentare pizzerie e ristoranti, senza pagarla con una nottata di asma.
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Incidently, smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk
Thomas Laprade
No evidence of passive smoking danger? Oh, really? Have a read at:
1. A Mahmud, J Feely - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2004 - Blackwell Synergy
2.DF Dietrich, J Schwartz, C Schindler, JM Gaspoz, … - International Journal of Epidemiology, 2007 - IEA
3. PH Whincup, JA Gilg, JR Emberson, MJ Jarvis, C … - British Medical Journal, 2004 - Br Med Assoc
4. DA Meyers, DS Postma, OC Stine, GH Koppelman, EJ … - The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2005 - Elsevier
5. K Jamrozik - British Medical Journal, 2005 - Br Med Assoc
6. CNA Palmer, ASF Doney, SP Lee, I Murrie, T Ismail, … - Pediatrics, 2006 - Am Acad Pediatrics
7. T Kato, T Inoue, T Morooka, N Yoshimoto, K Node - CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 2006 - article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
I can go on as much as you want. On google scholar I get 20100 hits...
e tanto per rincarar la dose:
http://liberoblog.libero.it/fotogallery/in-arrivo-la-porno-tassa-fg5226/pg1.phtml
ma el sesso passivo fa mal?
mz
intendi lo stupro?
si, e` abbastanza illegale
pensavo più www.anal.it ma non voio dir parolacce.
mz
I wonder how many people complained in the other European countries when the smoke van was put into effect. It wouldn't surprise me that the Dutch are much better at complaining about this than the people living in the other countries.
In any case it's great to go out and not stink of smoke when you come home anymore (just beer and sweat now).
Post a Comment