All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

Donna Gee - Spain's Grumpy Old Gran

SHARE THE MOANS AND GROANS OF AN IRRITABLE EXPAT BRITISH JOURNALIST

Are Spain's anti-smoking laws heading for the ash can?
Saturday, March 31, 2012 @ 5:59 PM

 BEYOND A SMOKE!

THERE are growing signs that Spain’s long-overdue legislation to curb the fag brigade is going up in smoke. 

 I suspected at the time the anti-smoking laws were tightened in January 2011 that tobacco-obsessed Spaniards would not observe it.

And I’ve also been horrified recently that some Brits seem happy to risk a fine of up to €600,000 (as well as a horrendous death) by either smoking illegally themselves – or, in the case of some bar and business owners,  allowing people to light up in enclosed bars, restaurants and even offices.

Clearly these people are playing with fire - both literally and metaphorically. They don’t seem to realise it only takes one puffed-off colleague or customer to turn them in...and they could be relieved of every cent they own. At least, that’s what the law says.

Realistically, we all know that the Spanish police and bureaucrats are about as straight as Julian Clary and Alan Carr pairing up with the Kray twins on Strictly Kill Dancing. And since the protectors of the state smoke just as heavily as its citizens, the words ‘nudge nudge, wink wink, puff puff’ come to mind.

Last weekend, a friend and I sat in the glass-fronted dining area of an upmarket, sea-front restaurant (I’m not saying where) and ordered a late lunch.  Since the pullback roof was closed, we naturally we assumed the area was non-smoking. Until, that is, we noticed ashtrays on the tables.

To add fire to the fuel, three members of a loud, ignorant  group of Spaniards proceeded to manipulate a suspicious-looking substance into a trio of pathetically thin roll-ups and to set them alight.

Within seconds, my pal and I were being passively poisoned via noise and nostrils combined.

“How come you allow smoking?’’ I asked a waiter. ‘’The room is closed in.’’

‘‘It is permitted for people to smoke,’’ he countered, pointing to a tiny gap between the slats of the removable roof. (Well, he indicated a gap – though I couldn’t actually see it). “We have ventilation and air conditioning, so it is not a problem.’’

Now, either I have got it all wrong, or the law brought in on January 2, 2011, banned smoking in enclosed public  places. In bars and restaurants the exception was to be establishments with a maximum of two walls or without a roof.

Since diners in this particular restaurant are visible to every passer-by, I can only assume that the police choose to ignore a seemingly blatant flouting of the law. Or maybe there’s some obscure small print which frees the restaurant management of compliance?

There is, of course, another possibility…but I wouldn’t dream of suggesting anyone in Spain is corrupt.

Non-observance of the law is even worse in some places. A few days ago, for instance, a non-smoking friend went into a  local Spanish bar for an early-morning coffee and was greeted by the sight of two Guardia Civil officers smoking away next to people eating breakfast.

“It goes on all the time,’’ my pal assured me, adding: “Personally, I wish smoking was allowed in set smoking areas in bars but not in restaurants or eating areas.’’

Sounds to me like they don’t need a law for that...they’ve designated the smoking bit already.

So much for the Spanish - what about the Brits who tell the legislators to go to blazes? The people who would not dare to defy the law in the UK, but seem to think it’s OK to bend the rules in Spain?

One publican admitted to me that when it’s cold, he takes a chance in the evenings by allowing smoking in the closed-in extension to his bar near Torrevieja.

“I know I’m taking a risk,’’ he said. “But my customers want to smoke and I don’t want to send them out into the road.’’

On the contrary, I could give him 600,000 reasons why he SHOULD send them out into the road.

I’m even more amazed by the smoker who lights up regularly in the open-plan office in which he works, just yards from his non-smoking boss and the entrance door.

Since smoke rises, the fumes drift to the office upstairs, not that the fumador is bothered. His defiance, despite the fact that the office’s few other addicts go outside to indulge their habit, astounds me as much as the fact that no one has made an issue of it. At least, not yet.

I just hope the person concerned sees the light before the law moves in. Or, worst-case scenario, a misplaced dog-end sets fire to the building and his boss suffers a fate worse than debt.

Published in The Courier (www.thecourier.es) March 30, 2012



Like 0




45 Comments


Steve Lee said:
Sunday, April 1, 2012 @ 9:52 AM

From the tone of this piece it is obvious that the writer is a non-smoker, as am I. The difference is that I don't go around trying to threaten/cajole others into doing as I do. This is Spain, not the UK - you remember, that depressing over-taxed, over-legislated hellhole we all came out here to escape. What the writer sees happening in Bars is people breaking the Law - and she doesn't like it. What I see happening in Bars is people-power in action. And I thank God for it. I have lived in Spain for over 18 years now and I am always gratified to see the Spanish people standing up for themselves against unjustified and often petty legislation. Long may it continue. Some Bars are letting people smoke, some are not. No-one has to use a Bar where smoking is allowed if smoking offends them. I detest Football so there are some evenings when it is difficult to find somewhere I can escape it. But I don't go around muttering darkly about passive-Football damaging the minds of passers-by. For the terminally-unhappy expat there is always the ultimate - go back to the "sunny" UK.


David Cruse said:
Sunday, April 1, 2012 @ 12:30 PM

I agree with Steve. I used to be a smoker and I am happy with the law. The things that bothers me is that my smoking friends are shut out just because non-smokers are the most intolerant people on the planet. If a non-smoker has 90 out of 100 bars to go to, then why should you complain when smokers only have 10 or less out of a 100. I live in Spain as well, I was raised with cigarettes so to speak.
Next thing on the list is alcohol, cause it kills. It causes bar fights, it causes accidents, hence directly hurting others and themselves.
I ask the writer of this article, are you being selfish or intolerant? Would you want your glass of wine taken away from you, just because there is a slight chance you hurt somebody by drinking? I have learned to respect people's choices and if that means that they want to run the risk of dying earlier or paying a huge fine, who am I to judge? Or you? When you sit in a bar, don't forget that it is NOT your bar? You are in private property which is not even state-owned. Still you claim that because YOU go there smoking should be prohibited. We all have become very intolerant towards one another. Exactly the thing that bothers me. If there are 10 smoker and I am the only non-smoker then is it really that hard for me to sit through a couple of hours of their habit? I say, look at the law in Holland. Some places yes, some places no. Criteria well put and everybody is happy. Freedom and respect. It should also come from us, we are the so-called health brigade. Intolerance is the downfall of all.


Justin said:
Sunday, April 1, 2012 @ 4:43 PM

At the end of the day, laws are laws. The same way we shouldn't speed or steal, smoking laws are there to be respected.

I am partial to the odd cigar now and then but I also realise that it really is annoying and awful for non smokers to have to inhale my smoke. I am happy to puff away outside.

When I was in Stockholm recently people were smoking outside of the bars in temperatures below zero. If they can respect the law and smoke outside in freezing temperatures, there really is no reason why this cannot be the same in (much warmer) Spain.


Patricia (Campana) said:
Sunday, April 1, 2012 @ 5:04 PM

I have to agree with what Justin says.

I am also a non-smoker (in fact I have never smoked), and my take on it is that if people wish to endanger their health by smoking then that is their problem. It is not for me to preach at them, and it is a matter between them and their health specialist.
If someone comes to my home and they are a smoker, then they have their cigarette out on the terrace, not because I ask them but because that is what they themselves want to do. It shows consideration on their part.
However, I don't think that smokers should selfishly endanger the health of others.
When smoking was permitted everywhere in public places and restaurants, it was impossible to have a pleasant meal or drink. My eyes would become red and sore, and I would start to cough. Also, one's clothes and hair were steeped in the smell of tobacco.
So, I do think it is important to have these regulations. And people power works both ways. I think, IMO, I have some rights too.

Donna G. also makes a point (not necessarily applicable just to tobacco prohibition and related matters). Some Brits come to Spain to escape the (perceived) over-regulation in their own country, and then complain and loudly get enraged because Spain is, again according to them, a lawless country, with no regulations.
Not possible, I am afraid, to have your cake and eat it! LOL.

Patricia




Donna Gee said:
Sunday, April 1, 2012 @ 8:07 PM

I sympathise with both Steve Lee and David Cruse, both of whom make very good points. However, I refuse to feel guilty just for wanting the citizens of Spain to observe a law designed to protect their health. We all have friends who smoke – I did myself for 20 years. But everyone knows now that it is a habit which kills thousands of people. So how on earth can you defend people defying legislation designed to remove that danger? Steve, people power is great when it is for a good cause. To me, there is nothing good about smoking; absolutely nothing. The problem with having both smoking and non-smoking bars is that before the new legislation, non-smoking ones were virtually impossible to find. On the urbanisation where I live, not one of the half-dozen or so bars even had a non-smoking area. I am all for having smokers’ bars...as long as they are balanced by a reasonable number of non-smoking establishments. But getting Spanish bar owners to impose a ban voluntarily? No chance!
Whilst Justin and Patricia’s comments are more in keeping with my own feelings, I would very much like to publish some of the comments here in The Courier, the Torrevieja-based newspaper of which I am editor (www.thecourier.es).
Steve, David, Justin, Patricia et al, if you are happy for your comments to appear on the Courier Letters Pages, please email me on donna@thecourier.es and let me know the area you live in. The latest issue goes online every Thursday evening.



Patricia (Campana) said:
Monday, April 2, 2012 @ 2:56 PM

Just to add, Donna, that there is also the matter of the staff who work in bars and restaurants. Their health is important too. Jobs are thin on the ground, and bar/restaurant staff might not have much of a choice, unlike the customer who can at least choose between a "smoking" premises and a non-smoking one.


My own country, Ireland, was the first to implement the non-smoking regulations, starting with bars, restaurants and places of entertainment, and then extending to all manner of public buildings. Certainly there were growls and grumbles when the law came into force, but common-sense prevailed. Pub, café and restaurant owners installed awnings, outdoor heaters, and other comforts, so that smokers could enjoy their addiction outside. On a positive note, the measures provided a kick-start for many of those wishing to give up the habit.
Plans are under way (maybe already implemented) to ban smoking inside private vehicles while carrying children. It makes sense to me.

I have some friends and family members who do smoke, and yet they all say they would like to kick the habit.

Best wishes to everyone. Health is wealth.

Patricia



abbbb1 said:
Monday, April 2, 2012 @ 4:34 PM

I have always been a non-smoker - after one puff at a teenage party put me off for life!!

After enduring years of being smoked over in restaurants I am pleased that I can finally go out and enjoy a meal in the knowledge that I won't come back smelling like a chimney!!

I don't try and preach to others about how they should live their lives - smoking or non-smoking - but I also do not expect them to force their smoke on me!

Roy Castle, is a case in point (no doubt one of the many) who said that his cancer was caused by his "passive smoking" in clubs. There must be lots of other entertainers and restaurant/club staff who have had to endure the same passive smoking - and no doubt the same risks.

My husband used to be a smoker (never in the house) and was so for over 30 years. He has spent the last two years of his life on a couch - hardly able to cross the room without panting for breath - and the only time that he leaves the house is in an ambulance. Now we both have to live with the consequences of his smoking!


DJ said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 3:41 AM

I live in Scotland and we were first with the anti-smoking legislation. Those hotels, bars and restaurants who could, built shelters with roofs in their grounds to protect us from the rain complete with heaters but open holes for windows. Now at that time, about 6 years ago, I ate out 5-6 nights a week. The problem is I enjoy cigars, lots of them.
The result was I took up serious cooking. Fried eggs and sausages had been my limit till then. I reckon I've eaten out 3 times locally in the 5 years since.
I wasn't the only one. We went out to eat not get hypothermia. The result is bars, restaurants and hotels have gone bust in droves. Value of these businesses have plummeted. People have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
The government meantime would be a total basket case were everyone to give up smoking and they lost the tobacco revenue.
What our idiot politicians should have done was said to establishments, elect to be smoking or non smoking. If smoking you must install air change equipment to meet certain regulations.
I was till about 1.5 years ago intending to move to Spain. When they started with the smoking nonsense plus went crazy on "speeding", drink driving, and mots I changed my mind. So there is another house sitting unsold and the government didn't get huge sums in taxes from me to have the pleasure of buying a roof over my head. Nor do they get sales tax revenue not even hotels as I've not been there since Nov 2010.
Good luck, bureaucrats know nothing, are illogical, spread misery and are pond life who seek to ensure that people are slaves to the state. Certainly the concept of free citizens is a total joke. To criminalise smoking whilst collecting the tax revenue as it is legal in fact to smoke makes me wonder when rather if, we'll see politicians hanging by the neck from lampposts. They depend totally on apathy. The problem coming is people are waking up and getting very angry.


Unix said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 8:35 AM

What smokers take no regard of is the effect on other people. I suffer from severe asthma, no fault of my own just bad genes, but the result is, is anyone smokes near me I am plunged into a possibly fatal reaction. The smokers world wide attitude of 'its my life and I'll do what I want with it' doesn't hold water. 'it's my life and you're killing me'! In Spain, I have to search very hard for a place to eat out. Non smokers are NOT catered for no matter what the law. I even find when, in the height of summer, I ask to dine inside to get away from the smoke, someone always comes in smoking to pay the bill or go to the bathroom and no one says anything. I've had to resort to walking out or suffer for days. Smokers in Spain, not just the Spainish, are extremely exploitive and totally ride rough shop over my right for clean air by shouting their THEIR rights to doing what they are being eroded. You don't drink toilet cleaner, you know it will kill you, you don't take arsenic, you know it kills, as these chemicals are in the smoke of cigarettes perhaps I will sue the Goverment for allowing state endorsed, attempted murder if they don't enforce their laws.


Santiago said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 9:05 AM

If politicians really wanted to ban smoking they'd ban the sale of tobacco products. Then they would have to increase taxes to make up the shortfall in revenue. How many non-smoking zealots would be happy to pay say a basic rate of 30% for Income Tax and 30% VAT ? not too many I know.
If 25% of the population smoke why can't 25% of bars and restaurants allow smoking, there's room in this world for everyone.
Incidentally, I don't smoke...!


Don Louis said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 9:31 AM

Well Donna Gee what a very intolerant article. The solution is simple, if as some people seem to think, the government is concerned for you health they should ban the sale of all tobacco products. Have you any idea of the revenue involved I am not sure how much is involved in Spain but in the UK you are talking about £45 million pounds a day and you can bet your life you would be one of the first complaining about the tax increases needed to cover this. Needless to say a total ban will not happen so the obvious answer is for smoking and non-smoking bars you would soon see which survived and people such as yourself would be more than welcome to use the non-smoking variety and sit with other like minded intolerant bigots or more than likely sit alone.


Mick said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 10:32 AM

I am an ex smoker and I don't like smokey bars or restaurants although I do feel if people want to smoke they should be allowed to, the solution would be to have 'proper' smoking areas and air conditioning and to enforce this situation being abided to if businesses have it. The problem in Spain is of course corruption and the police etc. deciding who should be allowed and who should not 'wink wink'.

What gets me about Spain and EU legislation also is the daft lack of common sense on the penalties of crime, 600,000 fine for smoking in a non smoking area! maybe it would be better for me to start a career in theft, gold bullion would be an appealing area.... bet the fine for being caught at that is not as much as 600,000, for sure stealing and abusing people in the street or home seems to carry a zero fine! There should be intelligence tests before people are allowed into situations where they dictate laws and rules.


Vivvy said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 10:33 AM

This is not 'our' country, we are guests here. If the Spanish want to ignore the law, that's their right and we must fit in with their way of doing things. Those of us who left the UK because we are over regulated, over watched, and over taxed should be glad that we now live in a more tolerant environment, with a lot more common sense applied to daily living - e.g.if you trip over a paving stone here you can't sue the council but should have been watching where you were walking. We are not all three years old as the UK government seems to think, we are capable of having a say in our own lives and taking responsibility for ourselves. If the Spanish want to bend the rules on smoking we shouldn't interfere but find a bar or restaurant that suits us, no-one forces us to go to places where smoking happens. I used to live in Greece where smoking is practically compulsory - the Greek people tried complying with the EU directives resulting in bars & restaurants losing massive amounts of revenue.They decided en masse that the laws were impractical and brought the ashtrays back out. Just doing what works for them and suits their way of life. How refreshing!


Vivvy said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 10:53 AM

This is not 'our' country, we are guests here. If the Spanish want to ignore the law, that's their right and we must fit in with their way of doing things. Those of us who left the UK because we are over regulated, over watched, and over taxed should be glad that we now live in a more tolerant environment, with a lot more common sense applied to daily living - e.g.if you trip over a paving stone here you can't sue the council but should have been watching where you were walking. We are not all three years old as the UK government seems to think, we are capable of having a say in our own lives and taking responsibility for ourselves. If the Spanish want to bend the rules on smoking we shouldn't interfere but find a bar or restaurant that suits us, no-one forces us to go to places where smoking happens. I used to live in Greece where smoking is practically compulsory - the Greek people tried complying with the EU directives resulting in bars & restaurants losing massive amounts of revenue.They decided en masse that the laws were impractical and brought the ashtrays back out. Just doing what works for them and suits their way of life. How refreshing!


Colin said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 11:20 AM

Anyone who inhales cigarette smoke knows that it is addictive, it is the nicotine (takes 7 seconds to reach the brain) that they cave for.
Sadly the bi product is 'smoke' which is the part that no one enjoys, regular smokers lose their sense of taste, and smell, and so become oblivious to the smell of their clothes, or indeed any consideration for others.

The comment regarding the Greeks was highly amusing! They joined the Euro by 'cooking the books' and it eventually caught up with them!
They are not exactly a nation to emulate.



Mark Knowles said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 11:40 AM

There is more than a good chance that the dangers of passive smoke have always been overstated.

The statistics were always provided by institutions who had a huge agenda and so, should be viewed with a healthy dose of suspicion (e.g. See http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

A Google search on "passive smoke is not dangerous" will produce millions more).

Yet most people who support anti-smoking laws believe, without any research, the case for passive smoke being 'deadly' unquestioningly. And NO, anecdotal 'guesses' by celebrity entertainers or bar staff is not proof - even if it is Roy Castle.

At the very least, it shows that people are 'choosing' which side of the argument to take - yet, passive-smoke-kills is far from a proven case and is almost certainly nowhere nearly as dangerous as claimed.

I am an ex-smoker (gave up 15 years ago) but, like Steve Lee, I prefer to see a greater value set on personal freedom by Government than continually extending its getting-more-ridiculous-by-the-day overreach.

To be fair and to err on the side of caution, determining whether a location should be subjected to anti-smoking, by law, should depend upon whether the public 'HAVE' to be there.

Therefore, public transport, government and medical buildings etc. etc. should be be no smoking zones. However, hearing people say things like "I can now go out for a meal without someone else 'FORCING' their smoke on me" is obviously and demonstrably absurd.

No one HAS to go out for a meal. You will not be late for work, be fined or die if you don't EVER go out for a meal. Therefore, the decision whether to permit smoking totally, partially or ban it completely from non-essential premises, should rest entirely with the Proprietor of those premises - not the Government.

I could see the case for some kind of mandatory signage/code to alert customers of the Proprietor's choice - before they go there - but removing the owner's freedom of choice, by law, is far worse than taking away the customers' choice.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that ALL laws should be blindly 'respected' by the sole virtue that they have been brought into law.

While a society operating under the 'rule of law' should be respected, it is dangerous to just spinelessly 'respect' any and every law just because it has been placed on the Statute books, regardless of how unjust it may be.

I know we're only talking about something 'relatively' unimportant here (smoking) but that line of thinking is a slippery slope and quite frightening. It is the ones who didn't 'respect' unjust laws, and thereby saw them repealed, who have allowed us all to keep what few freedoms we still have.

Those who just accept whatever is thrown at us have NEVER helped to quell the insidious tide of totalitarianism at all - but they are usually the first to cry when it runs them over.


John said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Donna Gee would act as a superb functionary for the Town Hall Stasi in Great Britain. The merits or demerits of smoking are up to the individual not Strasbourg enforced bureaucracy. All European Governments have made a fortune by the tax taken from tobaccos. Perhaps she could explain why Great Britain still pays 75,000,000 pounds a year to support European tobacco farmers. Perhaps her intentions would be better directed to the countless loss of lives brought about by the gung-ho attitude of British Prime ministers since the Falklands.


DJ said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 12:10 PM

I live in Scotland and we were first with the anti-smoking legislation. Those hotels, bars and restaurants who could, built shelters with roofs in their grounds to protect us from the rain complete with heaters but open holes for windows. Now at that time, about 6 years ago, I ate out 5-6 nights a week. The problem is I enjoy cigars, lots of them.
The result was I took up serious cooking. Fried eggs and sausages had been my limit till then. I reckon I've eaten out 3 times locally in the 5 years since.
I wasn't the only one. We went out to eat not get hypothermia. The result is bars, restaurants and hotels have gone bust in droves. Value of these businesses have plummeted. People have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
The government meantime would be a total basket case were everyone to give up smoking and they lost the tobacco revenue.
What our idiot politicians should have done was said to establishments, elect to be smoking or non smoking. If smoking you must install air change equipment to meet certain regulations.
I was till about 1.5 years ago intending to move to Spain. When they started with the smoking nonsense plus went crazy on "speeding", drink driving, and mots I changed my mind. So there is another house sitting unsold and the government didn't get huge sums in taxes from me to have the pleasure of buying a roof over my head. Nor do they get sales tax revenue not even hotels as I've not been there since Nov 2010.
Good luck, bureaucrats know nothing, are illogical, spread misery and are pond life who seek to ensure that people are slaves to the state. Certainly the concept of free citizens is a total joke. To criminalise smoking whilst collecting the tax revenue as it is legal in fact to smoke makes me wonder when rather if, we'll see politicians hanging by the neck from lampposts. They depend totally on apathy. The problem coming is people are waking up and getting very angry.


Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 12:31 PM

As usual, people's comments seem to reflect their own, usually selfish and biased, views.

I'm a non smoker, always have been. Both of my parents and my older brother smoked. I grew up in a house that was permanently bathed in cigarette smoke. Both of my parents and my older brother are now dead, prematurely I might add.

If anyone is "entitled" to have strong views about smoking, I would be a strong candidate.

I also used to sing in pubs, clubs and bars, long before the UK smoking ban came into force, so have long been concerned about "Roy Castle Syndrome".

The simple fact is, smoking kills! Passive smoking kills!

Now if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that's their business. But it's the people who bleat on about their rights to smoke wherever they want that are being selfish and intolerant.

Someone made a comparison with alcohol being equally anti social. There's no comparison! If someone is drinking to ill effect, people can simply move out of their way. If someone is smoking, their smoke pervades the air and it's very difficult to avoid......and worse if several people are smoking.

I once believed that establishments should have a separate enclosed space for smokers. However, as someone pointed out, you can't expect to staff such rooms with people who are happy to accept the fact that they are slowly being poisoned by other people's smoke. Some people argue that such places could employ only smokers, but that would be discriminatory to non smokers, or even smokers who would prefer not to work in smoke filled rooms, of which there are many.

It also wouldn't guarantee that some of the more militant smokers wouldn't still violate the non smoking areas and bleat on about their right to smoke wherever they want.

So, it makes perfect sense for smoking to be totally banned in all public indoor places and millions of considerate smokers all over the world agree.

I've been to California (one of the first places in the World to ban smoking), New York, Ireland, Scotland and for all the smokers who complain about their rights being violated, there are many more who are happy that the ban has meant they've been able to cut down, or give up, smoking, have got their sense of smell and taste back, their clothes and hair don't stink as much as they used to (they tend to notice it more, now their sense of smell is returning!)

What no-one has mentioned is that the smoking ban now means that it's virtually impossible to enjoy a meal "al fresco", due to the fact that all the smokers are now outside.

But, do you know what, I believe that's a small concession to make, for the millions of non smokers who can now enjoy a drink or a meal in a smoke free environment, albeit in an enclosed environment.

And before anyone gets on my case about "anti smoking".......if you've read what I've said properly, you should realise that everything I've said is about people's freedom to choose.

When smoking was allowed everywhere, there was no freedom to choose. Even for smokers who would prefer not to be breathing in the 2nd hand smoke of other smokers......and I've met many smokers over the years who hated being in oppressively smokey atmospheres as much as any non smoker.

As with many things in life, if we can't agree, perhaps it's just best to compromise?

Non smokers should be safe in the knowledge that they can enjoy a smoke free environment, wherever it's designated to be so.

Smokers can be safe in the knowledge that they can smoke anywhere they want, as long it's outside and us non smokers will compromise on the fact that you can still spoil our enjoyment of a meal, if we choose to eat al fresco.

Oh and you can still smoke in your own homes.......but don't get me started on that one!


Mark Knowles said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 12:37 PM

There is more than a good chance that the dangers of passive smoke have always been overstated.

The statistics were always provided by institutions who had a huge agenda and so, should be viewed with a healthy dose of suspicion (e.g. See http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

A Google search on "passive smoke is not dangerous" will produce millions more).

Yet most people who support anti-smoking laws believe, without any research, the case for passive smoke being 'deadly' unquestioningly. And NO, anecdotal 'guesses' by celebrity entertainers or bar staff is not proof - even if it is Roy Castle.

At the very least, it shows that people are 'choosing' which side of the argument to take - yet, passive-smoke-kills is far from a proven case and is almost certainly nowhere nearly as dangerous as claimed.

I am an ex-smoker (gave up 15 years ago) but, like Steve Lee, I prefer to see a greater value set on personal freedom by Government than continually extending its getting-more-ridiculous-by-the-day overreach.

To be fair and to err on the side of caution, determining whether a location should be subjected to anti-smoking, by law, should depend upon whether the public 'HAVE' to be there.

Therefore, public transport, government and medical buildings etc. etc. should be be no smoking zones. However, hearing people say things like "I can now go out for a meal without someone else 'FORCING' their smoke on me" is obviously and demonstrably absurd.

No one HAS to go out for a meal. You will not be late for work, be fined or die if you don't EVER go out for a meal. Therefore, the decision whether to permit smoking totally, partially or ban it completely from non-essential premises, should rest entirely with the Proprietor of those premises - not the Government.

I could see the case for some kind of mandatory signage/code to alert customers of the Proprietor's choice - before they go there - but removing the owner's freedom of choice, by law, is far worse than taking away the customers' choice.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that ALL laws should be blindly 'respected' by the sole virtue that they have been brought into law.

While a society operating under the 'rule of law' should be respected, it is dangerous to just spinelessly 'respect' any and every law just because it has been placed on the Statute books, regardless of how unjust it may be.

I know we're only talking about something 'relatively' unimportant here (smoking) but that line of thinking is a slippery slope and quite frightening. It is the ones who didn't 'respect' unjust laws, and thereby saw them repealed, who have allowed us all to keep what few freedoms we still have.

Those who just accept whatever is thrown at us have NEVER helped to quell the insidious tide of totalitarianism at all - but they are usually the first to cry when it runs them over.


Don Lochnagar said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 12:41 PM

I'm an ex-smoker, but I don't like the smell of smoke on my clothes when I've been out for an evening. In my area the smoking ban is more or less adhered to with the exception of the ironmonger's shop where the owner, his son and the worker smoke openly behind the counter. Oh, and he just happens to be the local elected political representative. Funny that.


Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 1:11 PM

Hmmmm, Mark Knowles says there's a "chance" that the dangers of passive smoking have been overstated?

Well, to use his own words.......even while there's a "chance", surely it's best to err on the side of caution?

Roy Castle is often used as an example of the dangers of passive smoking, as he died of lung cancer. Now I'm not saying it's a dead cert that the lung cancer was caused by passive smoking.......but the "chance" and probability is very high!

How many other non smokers have died of lung cancer that we don't hear about, because they're not famous or high profile?

I'd prefer not to be one of them, but I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time?

Oh and the idea of banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is not the ideology of a few nutty politicians.

Check out Wikipedia for the worldwide list of smoking bans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

And for the gent in Scotland who blames the smoking ban for killing off various businesses, I read some statistics recently that showed there are now more licenced establishments in the UK than there were before the smoking ban came into force.

They just tend to be licenced bars, cafe's, bistro's etc rather than pubs.

There are less pubs these days, but that's more down to the advent of PubCo's than the smoking ban.

But don't get me started on that one either!




Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 1:14 PM

Hmmmm, Mark Knowles says there's a "chance" that the dangers of passive smoking have been overstated?

Well, to use his own words.......even while there's a "chance", surely it's best to err on the side of caution?

Roy Castle is often used as an example of the dangers of passive smoking, as he died of lung cancer. Now I'm not saying it's a dead cert that the lung cancer was caused by passive smoking.......but the "chance" and probability is very high!

How many other non smokers have died of lung cancer that we don't hear about, because they're not famous or high profile?

I'd prefer not to be one of them, but I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time?

Oh and the idea of banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is not the ideology of a few nutty politicians.

Check out Wikipedia for the worldwide list of smoking bans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

And for the gent in Scotland who blames the smoking ban for killing off various businesses, I read some statistics recently that showed there are now more licenced establishments in the UK than there were before the smoking ban came into force.

They just tend to be licenced bars, cafe's, bistro's etc rather than pubs.

There are less pubs these days, but that's more down to the advent of PubCo's than the smoking ban.

But don't get me started on that one either!




Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 1:17 PM

Oops! Dunno how that got posted twice?

Oh well........

"Good point, good point, so good it posted twice...."

:-)


Louise said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 1:45 PM

Some of these posts have given me a giggle or two so thanks for that! I am a smoker but I respect that not everyone is and for that reason I have never smoked in my house as I wouldn't want my children to suffer and I'm happy to go outside and in Spain its not generally a problem. If the weather is that dire, I either wouldn't go outside and smoke or I wouldn't go out in the first place and smoke in my garage or covered terrace! I'm sorry for those who feel they can't sit outside because us smokers are there but you can't have it all ways and I'm sure that the non smokers would rather be able to sit inside especially in the winter without smoke! I'm happy to smoke outside and always try to make sure my smoke isn't blowing towards a non-smoker but please don't try to stop this as well or moan about it because you generally have your smoke-free environment inside!


Foxilady said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 2:23 PM

Hmmm a very emotive subject. Choices are constantly being eroded by politicians/bureaucrats. Initially here in the UK it was planned that smoking would be allowed in specified areas on the pubs/clubs and bars etc. Hence business owners went to the trouble of installing air con in these designated areas. Then rather insidiously the ban came into force, under Blair rule. Blair himself was fighting for designated areas. Then parliament had a "late" night meeting and the entire ban came in! Strange eh? And no-one is absolutely sure who is responsible for this, as far as I am aware. So all those bar/club owners etc went to massive expense for nothing! This is often how laws are enforced overnight by lobbyists overnight. I myself prefer the non smoking ban as I had a nasal cancer, but I would have been just as happy with a designated area for smokers as I believe strongly in choice. There is no good going on an on about how dangerous smoking is, life is dangerous full stop. Governments/local authorities have to stop treating us like children and allow us personal freedoms to cut years off our lives if we so wish. Interesting isn't it when smoking was legal buildings didn't burn down due to a fag end, but now we have a ban it is of course highly possible lol! So let's all exercise the choices we have left, and if you don't like being in smokey atmospheres be radical and leave!


DJ said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 2:33 PM

I live in Scotland and we were first with the anti-smoking legislation. Those hotels, bars and restaurants who could, built shelters with roofs in their grounds to protect us from the rain complete with heaters but open holes for windows. Now at that time, about 6 years ago, I ate out 5-6 nights a week. The problem is I enjoy cigars, lots of them.
The result was I took up serious cooking. Fried eggs and sausages had been my limit till then. I reckon I've eaten out 3 times locally in the 5 years since.
I wasn't the only one. We went out to eat not get hypothermia. The result is bars, restaurants and hotels have gone bust in droves. Value of these businesses have plummeted. People have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
The government meantime would be a total basket case were everyone to give up smoking and they lost the tobacco revenue.
What our idiot politicians should have done was said to establishments, elect to be smoking or non smoking. If smoking you must install air change equipment to meet certain regulations.
I was till about 1.5 years ago intending to move to Spain. When they started with the smoking nonsense plus went crazy on "speeding", drink driving, and mots I changed my mind. So there is another house sitting unsold and the government didn't get huge sums in taxes from me to have the pleasure of buying a roof over my head. Nor do they get sales tax revenue not even hotels as I've not been there since Nov 2010.
Good luck, bureaucrats know nothing, are illogical, spread misery and are pond life who seek to ensure that people are slaves to the state. Certainly the concept of free citizens is a total joke. To criminalise smoking whilst collecting the tax revenue as it is legal in fact to smoke makes me wonder when rather if, we'll see politicians hanging by the neck from lampposts. They depend totally on apathy. The problem coming is people are waking up and getting very angry.


Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 2:49 PM

Hmmm, several people keep going on about governments taking away people's choices. But, in the case of the smoking ban, it's actually improved the majority of people's right to choose.

Before the smoking ban, non smokers only had the choice whether to stay home, or go out and risk suffering inhalation of smokers 2nd hand smoke, as smokers were everywhere.

At least now there is a choice for everyone, whether they want to be in a smoke free environment, which many smokers now enjoy when they're not actually smoking, or go outside and inhale all the poison that pollutes the air.

But don't get me started on that one either!


Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 3:02 PM

Oh and as for the "hypocrisy" of the governments collecting tax on tobacco products, whilst enforcing a smoking ban........smoking is and probably always will be, perfectly legal. Governments are simply taking the very sensible step of restricting where smoking is allowed.

The very fact that a selection of people keep droning on about smokers "rights" just goes to show that they don't have the courtesy or social conscience to understand or appreciate the rights of others.

It's certain sections of society's inability or unwillingness to appreciate the needs of others that leads the politicians and bureaucrats to feel the need to legislate for certain things.

And if anyone doesn't like the way things are done, they have the right to run for office and find out first hand how and why things are done the way they are. Rather than base their opinions on their own biased views, or those of the so called "free press", who just brainwash people into believing their biased and usually politically based views.

But........you got it......don't get me started........!


Unix said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 4:04 PM

Thanks Ian, well stated.


Andy said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 5:28 PM

If you dont want to smoke, fine, but you are very ignorant to condemn those who do- and it's people like you that contribute to today's miserable morale in society. Who do you think you are? Some places allow smoking, some dont, ( before the ban), and you were welcome to vote with your feet. I smoke, but I have not been to a pub since the ban was introduced, and consequrntly have completely given up drinking. Yes, some smokers can be selfish, but that gives you absolutely no right to preach with such ignorance......Grrrr, people like you make me really ANGRY!!


Andy said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 5:34 PM

Oh, and by the way, I am not a selfish smoker. I do not smoke in my own home, i dont smoke in my car if i have passengers, i never have smoked near people who are eating, and i dont enjoy it, i just find it extremely hard to give up. It is not unlawful, and the smoking ban is solely responsible for thousands of businesses closing down.


Ian Grant said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 10:07 PM

Hmmmm, I'm guessing Andy's comments are directed at me?

But, sadly, yet another example of someone reading but not "seeing" or understanding.

I haven't condemned anyone. Anyone who reads what I've written properly will see that I said "if someone wants to smoke and kill themselves, that's their business".

That's not a condemnation, it's an opinion and acceptance that some people choose to do something that I find disagreeable. Not disagreeable that someone else smokes, just disagreeable to me i.e. not something I would ever subject myself to.

As I said, if someone chooses to smoke, that's their business.

But I never have and hopefully never will, get so wound up about it that I feel compelled to express such GRRRRR, anger.

Comments such as "people like you" just go to strengthen my argument about who are really the intolerant people in this debate.


dollymixture said:
Saturday, April 7, 2012 @ 10:10 PM

I find it all a joke. We were in Spain over Xmas and went into a spanish bar after midnight nye and they were all puffing away as normal inside?


Jeff said:
Sunday, April 8, 2012 @ 3:44 PM

I just wish that they would allow smoking in bars.

Then maybe I could find a seat outside again without being surrounded by smokers who used to prefer being inside out of the sun.


Graeme said:
Sunday, April 8, 2012 @ 5:54 PM

Short and sweet....Yes, we know about the law but if its still happening....Dont frequent the bar....

Thats the beauty of Spain....loads of choise...

Adios


DJ said:
Sunday, April 8, 2012 @ 10:49 PM

I don't know why my piece has reposted so apologies.
My point is, and I reject the suggestion the UK has more licensed premises than before the ban, simple technology exists to remove and filter the smoke particles from the air. Customers and staff would see which premises are licensed and which elect to be non-smoking so able to vote with their feet.
If smoking is so harmful why don't governments ban it altogether? I am reminded of the war on drugs where economies spend billions. In fact I say educate of the dangers, make all drugs legal for over 21's and the governments should distribute the free of charge thereby destroying the black market and associated criminal activities such as muggings to get money for their next fix.
Have we not learned any lessons from prohibition?
In Scotland local councils are responsible for enforcement. I had a visit from four senior officials including a director for a meeting. They were shown into my office whilst I was on the phone. I was also smoking a cigar. My office and business are run from my home. I got some strange looks then realised I had the cigar. I said "welcome to the only smoking office in Scotland. Feel free to smoke." They all laughed and some got out there cigarettes. In fact if you drive past official buildings over here there are always a bunch of employees standing outside smoking. The public purse pays for their time while they do so. I have suggested equipping them with cordless phones so they could at least do some work whilst outside.


Ian Grant said:
Sunday, April 8, 2012 @ 11:29 PM

Well, as I said, I read somewhere that there are now more licenced premises in the UK and a quick Google search found the following:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/842591-number-of-licensed-premises-selling-alcohol-hits-record-high

I think it may have been in 2010, as there was a similar article in the Daily Mail, via this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316267/Number-licensed-premises-record-high-traditional-pubs-shut-down.html

In neither of these articles, both written years after the smoking ban, is there any mention of the smoking ban being a major contributor to the increasing closure of pubs.

Even the "pub industry" blames the recession and an increase in insolvencies (which I believe are caused by the anti competitive antics and ridiculous lease terms imposed by Pub Co's, but that's a whole other debate).

I commend individual smokers who show consideration for others but, sadly, these are very much in the minority, which is why the ban has to be all or nothing.

And despite what anyone says to me, I've met too many smokers all over the World who tell me they prefer to be in smoke free environments when they're not actually smoking to ever be persuaded that allowing "some" indoor smoking areas would work.





Gwilym T said:
Monday, April 9, 2012 @ 7:59 AM

On a recent visit to Portugal They have smoking/non smoking bars with window stickers from the council,but the thing that made me laugh was the smoking bars were full but the non smokers still went into them because that was where the action was then had the cheek to complain about the smoke, The non smokers want the action but not the smoke .we all know smoking kills but so does many other things like driving a car are they going to ban that next???


ChristineJoyce said:
Monday, April 9, 2012 @ 8:00 PM

Why am I not surprised that this law is flouted in Spain. I know pubs that have smoking lock ins in the UK. It's the law, don't do it!


catman said:
Sunday, April 15, 2012 @ 12:47 PM

Someone mentioned way back in this blog that you could not claim if you tripped up over a flagstone, well in this part of Spain (Tarragona) you can ---- and its made a vast difference to the quality of pavements.


LooseBruce said:
Thursday, April 19, 2012 @ 11:06 AM

Smoking Bans? You've all missed the point here in England. Caroline Flint clearly stated 11,000 to 13,000 die every year due to second-hand smoke. Fact is we never had one recorded case, FACT!. (I understand Roy Castle smoked cigars so not classed as a second-hand smoker). Caroline Flint also stated 120,000 to 160,000 die as a result of smoking. Based on what? She also stated that 7 million (yes 7,000,000) extra non-smokers would visit pubs due to 'clean air' policy. 'Pubs will BOOM'!!! Yeah Right!! She also stated in 2006 there were 14,000,000 smokers. This week our government stated we have 8 million smokers.
Now ask yourself, why have cancers increased dramatically since 2006? There are 262,000 reported new cases of cancer ever year (2012 goverment advert tells me so!). In 2006 it was 131,000 (government advert at the time). Funny how it appears to have doubled in six years? Smoking halved but ASH and CRUK (who we ALL fund directly or indirectly) still insist smoking is the cause of a majority of these cases. That means in 30 odd years all smokers will be dead and therefore UK will definitely be smokeR free. The reason for capitol 'R' is due to fact government & do- good institutions keep missing it off their adverts. It is not 'Smokefree UK' but rather 'SmokeRfree UK'. Smokefree means no coal fires, wood burners, cars, trucks buses etc, etc.
However the FACT remains that the choice of smoking is individual. The choice of going to a smoking / non-smoking area is individual. The choice to commit suicide is of cousre individual. It's called choice. Freedom to choose.
I used to live in a democracy but now enjoy a dictatorship.
Who rules the UK? Who voted them in? Who is responsible for the mess we are in with the smoking ban? Let's face it it is a mess.
Pubs closing or converting to cafe's. Bingo Halls & Working men's club closing. (Incidentally, how many adverts for on-line bingo? Says it all). Millions lost due to people buying their tobacco products overseas. Agruements started on litter outside pubs, noise and 'poor welcome' having to barge through smokers who linger around doorways.
There was and still is the very easy answer to it all. Yet will we do it? Of course not. Because of......... why?? Who is intolerent?


Mark Ashleigh said:
Monday, January 14, 2013 @ 11:08 PM

If someone breaches the smoking laws to whom do you report it too.


Mark Gee said:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 @ 3:22 PM

It's great to see people discussing the benefits of leaving the UK and starting a new life in Spain.....all possible thanks to the European Laws that allow freedom of movement. It is also these European Directives that insist Smoking in restaurants and bars should be made illeagal. It is not possible in life to pick and choose which Law it is that you prefer to abide by without facing the consequences. If everyone decided to behave in this way then we would be in a Lawless society....


XT600 said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 10:34 AM

sorry to re-open this old topic but how does it look 2013? I remember the last days of 2010 we arrived in Malaga and went to a normal local snack bar - 1minute after our meals were served the neighbours started to light-up - what a disapointment!

2 days later (January 2nd) the smokers sat outside the bars in Sevilla and Cordoba...

We returned December 2012 to Andalucia and I don't remember that I'd have notice a situation as end of 2010. Maybe we just were in the "good" places?

Personally I think that non-smokers have been very tolerant the recent 100 years (or so?) and part of the evolution that times are changing.

Smoking ban only works in countries where citizens usually follow laws (Skandinavia, USA, UK, Germany) - in Latin Europe societies laws are taken only as guidelines - penalties doesn't help if the authorities don't execute properly!

So how is it 2013 in Spain?


Leave a comment

You don't have to be registered to leave a comment but it's quicker and easier if you are (and you also can get notified by email when others comment on the post). Please Sign In or Register now.

Name *
Spam protection: 
 
Your comment * (HTML not allowed)

(Items marked * are required)



 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x