Dutch smoking ban goes into force
A tobacco smoking ban has come into effect in cafes, bars and restaurants in the Netherlands.
The country is following a growing trend across Europe and the world of bans on smoking in public places.
Pro-smoking lobbyists say the ban will lead to a drop in business, but others say any losses will be made up by non-smokers going out more.
Patrons of cannabis cafes will still be allowed to smoke marijuana as long as it is not mixed with tobacco.
Possession of cannabis is illegal in the Netherlands, but holders of small amounts are not prosecuted. Smoking cannabis is permitted in licensed cafes.
Read the article: BBC News, 1 July 2008
Dutch smoking ban goes into effect at midnight
A smoking ban will go into effect in Dutch bars, restaurants and cafes as of midnight tonight. The idea behind the ban is that personnel in the hospitality industry also have a right to a smoke-free work environment. The Dutch association representing the hospitality industry claims that the ban will lead to a reduction in the number of people going out but numerous other countries have banned smoking and have not seen visitor numbers fall.
A Radio Netherlands World survey conducted among Dutch people living in countries with smoking bans revealed that around half went out just as often as before the ban. Thirty-five percent said they went out more frequently and just 11 percent said they went out less frequently.
Source: Radio Netherlands, 30 June 2008
Dutch smoking ban: No tobacco in your joints, cafes ordered
Dutch coffee shops, long considered as synonymous with the Netherlands as tulips or attacking football, face a new challenge from today when a ban on smoking tobacco in restaurants and cafes comes into effect. The owners claim the law, which will allow customers to light up potent tobacco-free pure cannabis joints but ban milder spliffs in which tobacco is mixed with cannabis, threatens to put hundreds of them out of business.
“It’s a bit like saying to someone you can go into a cafe and you can buy a beer, but you can’t drink it there - you’ll have to stick to whisky, rum and vodka,” said Paul Wilhelm, owner of De Tweede Kamer, a popular Amsterdam coffee shop.
As most patrons prefer milder joints in which cannabis is mixed with tobacco, and only 18% favour much stronger, pure cannabis spliffs, the fear is that the days of the coffee shops could be numbered. The catering industry said 1,600 coffee shops across the country were up for sale because their owners were convinced their businesses were doomed.
Read the article: The Guardian, 1 July 2008
July 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Smoking bans are the real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Incidently, smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk
Thomas Laprade