Smoking ban on trial in The Hague
Friday, November 28, 2008 Colleagues in Holland will tomorrow be taking part in a mass protest against their country's public smoking ban. Organisers of the rally in The Hague hope to attract up to 5,000 supporters.
Earlier this month it was reported that Dutch bar and cafe owners are putting ashtrays back on tables because the ban is driving hundreds of small businesses towards bankruptcy. (Story HERE.)
Tomorrow's event is organised by Red de Kleine Horecaondernemer (KHO), an alliance of Dutch smokers' rights groups and over a thousand bar and cafe owners. Protestors will be addressed by members of the Dutch parliament representing three political parties.
Ton Wurtz, a spokesman for KHO and an old friend of Forest, says the alliance wants the owners of small bars and cafes to be able to choose between smoking or non-smoking - as is currently the case in Spain and (for the moment) Germany.
We are keeping an eye on developments and are in close contact with Ton (and others in Holland). Watch this space.
Reader Comments (21)
Good for them and I wish them every success.
Puts us Brits to shame, though, doesn't it? As ever, we just sit back and let it all happen around us and then bleat about it, but still actually do nothing!!
Sorry to the guys in Bristol that did hold a protest rally, but with due respect, it needs a rally of thousands, in London, with some powerful speakers.
This seems to be catching.
"Mandelson blamed for stubbing out new anti-smoking laws"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/.....article.do .
Geoffrey Norris mentioned in the article is Mandelson's special advisor and negotiated with ASH on this matter. Norris is a passionate deregulator. You may want to drop Messrs Mandelson and Norris a quick email of thanks. Who knows they may advise an amendment to the SBE if we ask nicely.
mpst.spad@berr.gsi.gov.uk
mpst.mandelson@berr.gsi.gov.uk
Lyn I went on that rally in Bristol and the lack of commitment from many was/is pretty bad. If we marched on Parliament Square, if we got 1-2,000 people I would be surprised.
Yes.Some people in this country need to hang their heads in shame.Moan moan but do something ? No!
Is it any wonder HMG & Co are walking all over us.
Many small neighborhood bars here in Illinois are ignoring the ban too. Al Capone is laughing in his grave.
God bless our Dutch friends.
And God rot the do-nothing wimps in the Tory Party...............
Dave, well done for joining the protest march in Bristol.
Shamefully I did not, but in my defence I do suffer panic attacks in crowds and suffer quite badly with depression. I am, however, always with the protesters in spirit, for what that is worth.
Locally, a few of us are regularly taking on our local council and we have the same problems, everyone will moan and complain, but no-one will do anything, like write to the local press (they get fed up of us few after a while and stop publishing our letters!); attend meetings where the council are prepared to 'engage' with the public - these are simple things, but there are only 2 or 3 of us that speak out!
Where is the good old British fighting spirit that was abundant during 2 world wars? Of course, the slime in government have slowly and stealthily been eroding that fighting spirit over the years!
If I might speak up for the British for a moment, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
Firstly, the smoking ban in the UK is one of the most draconian in Europe, and so it's not surprising that it has been so meekly complied with. If, for example, it had been even more draconian, and smokers were shot on sight by roving bands of police marksmen, I suggest that there would have been even greater compliance with the law.
Secondly, in places like Holland, there is a much more liberal culture than Britain, as evidenced by the existence of bars where you can legally smoke cannabis - unthinkable in Britain. The illiberality and absurdity of smoking bans must be blindingly obvious to anyone in Holland who is at present free to go into one of these bars to smoke a reefer, but not a cigarette. This isn't so obvious in Britain.
Thirdly, in Germany, where there is also strong resistance to smoking bans, there is an enduring memory of the Hitler years during which tobacco came under exactly the same attacks as now, for exactly the same reasons as now. The British are entirely unaware of the Nazi origins of modern antismoking in ways that many Germans are not. If more Brits knew what Germans know, they would feel rather differently.
The lesson I draw from this is that smoking bans are the most successful where they are the most draconian. However, the more draconian a law, the more bitterly it inevitably comes to be hated. The growing British backlash against the smoking ban is, in the long run, likely to be as intense and powerful as the original law was draconian.
To a degree I agree with you Idlex, but then if the most draconian bans are the most successful, how come that smoking increases in those countries, where more tolerant acceptable measures are taken, the number of people smoking has decreased?
It is time this government learned and accepted that people will not bow down to dictatorship, but play fair and people will work with them!
I mean 'success' in the narrow terms of compliance with the law, which in this case is the ban on smoking in public places. The more draconian the law, the more people will comply with it.
But the more draconian the law, the more people will hate the law and all that it stands for. So people will stop smoking in public places, but cease to give up smoking, and, if anything, dig their heels in and smoke more.
In those countries where the law is mild, the law will not be hated, and neither will the medical science behind the law. And people will do whatever they feel appropriate, which is very often to freely choose to give up smoking, because they believe that it isn't good for them.
I firmly believe that the current UK smoking ban is going to prove a disaster for the antismoking cause. Up until the ban, smoking had gradually becoming less and less prevalent as people chose of their own accord to give up smoking. But once coercion was introduced, resistance was bound to mount, and smoking prevalence to increase.
But in addition, the smoking bans have spurred many people into doing what they would never have done before, which is to take a look at the science for themselves. And what they invariably find is that there is no justification whatsoever for any smoking ban as a public health measure. They are finding that antismokers have been playing fast and loose with the science under the misapprehension that their claims would be taken on trust, and that nobody would ever check up on them. That bluff is now being called, and it's going to bring the entire cause of antismoking into disrepute. And this will probably result in smokers, who hitherto trusted antismoking health experts, ceasing to believe them. In fact it will bring the entire authority of public health experts into question in areas which have nothing to do with smoking.
I hope that they get plenty of publicity in Holland and over here.
Our Government believe that the ban has been a great success, because nearly everybody has complied with it. It is the enormous fines that has made the majority comply.
The Antismokers are desperately, terribly, horribly afraid of resistance. They know that one of the strongest arguments made against bans in the 80s and 90s was that they'd be "unenforceable" and they know that the bans could fall in a heartbeat if faced with widespread resistance.
That's one of the main reasons for the draconian measures in Britain, and it's one of the main reasons that when new bans come in the governments involved will often stage a huge crackdown right at the start to "teach everyone a lesson."
People don't realize that such a crackdown couldn't continue in the face of real resistance so everyone just kind of gives up and hopes someone else stands up to take the heat.
What has happened here in the States though is that the Antismokers have extended themselves too thinly while trying to grab more and more territory. As a result, a lot of the bans that are in place actually ARE being ignored by places that are outside the main public eye and the laws are becoming more and more disrespected. What needs to happen though is that people need to be made more aware of that: there is strength in unity and weakness in a bunch of little islands acting alone.
That is the lesson the Dutch are giving the world. Let's hope the world is listening!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Apathy is the greatest sin against Freedom. Those who conspire to reduce freedom are also those who think it will never be their turn to lose a freedom they enjoy. It never occurs to them that they also pay in lost taxes, jobs and other unintended loss of their own.Apparently loss of integrity means nothing to them.All they have are the lies they spread in order to control others.
Hello, nice to hear you saying such kind things about us in Holland. I’ve been away for a while, but I’d like to fill you in about some of the backgrounds re what’s happening in Holland.
Lately there has been something creepy going on over here. Something very un-Dutch. We’re experiencing the results of allowing too many neopuritans into our government. One by one, they’re crawling out of the woodwork, intent on purging our over-liberal country of vice.
The worst three of them are:
(1) Our PM, Mr Jan Peter Balkenende. He thinks it’s a realistic option to shut down every single ‘coffeeshop’ in the country. He is utterly deaf to contrary advice by the experienced mayors of Amsterdam and the border town of Heerlen. Jan Peter just won’t listen. His mantra is: “Once the coffeeshops are gone, cannabis will be gone, and no foreigner will want to come over here to smoke the evil weed.”
(2) Our health minister Mr Ab Klink, a Christian Democrat like Jan Peter, and as mad as a hatter. He staunchly refuses to talk to hard-up small pub owners about the smoking ban. Instead, he threatens them with ever higher fines (up to 16,000 euros!) and police intervention. Which immediately made him extremely unpopular with the police, who rightly claim they have more important things on their plates than smoking in pubs. But Ab doesn’t listen to them, either. Furthermore, this headcase has actually blacklisted almost 200 species of mushroom! Which means you can be fined if these things are accidentally growing in your garden. Obviously, this devout Christian strongly objects to God having created these organisms and allowing them to grow freely in nature. This will make for an interesting discussion when he arrives at the Pearly Gates, haha!
(3) Beyond parody is our minister of Family Affairs, Mr André Rouvoet. He wants an electronic data record for every Dutch child, including information on such niceties as the parents’ religion (!) and the development of the kid’s genitalia and pubic hair. A protest group has already called upon people to cut off their pubes and send them in an envelope to André’s home.
I kid you not – these guys are for real. They are real politicians with real powers and they are sitting in OUR government in The Hague.
Sometimes, it makes me want to weep. But on the other hand, it *does* make for a great laugh, and for an opportunity to show our traditional common sense…
So, perhaps this helps to explain why many Dutch are so very, very angry at the moment.
Phew… had to get this off my chest, thanks for listening :)
If Holland has any bio-medical professionals, they ought be asked to advise in any "tobacco" discussions.
Tobacco itself hasn't been shown to do harms beyond some undetermined inherently risky elements. No studies are clear about what they actually researched. "Cigarette" or "smoke" are grossly insufficient terms. "Industrially Contaminated Tobacco" would work...if the contaminants and their mfgrs were mentioned.
Therefore, tobacco ought be taken off the table as a target of bans and prohibition.
However, many of the non-tobacco cigarette adulterants (pesticides, chlorine/dioxin, radiation from certain fertilizers, burn-accelerants, formaldehyde, etc etc) are known to be harmful, very harmful. Those non-tobacco substances must be the focus of bans.
It is patently unjust to put legal burdens on pub and bar and restaurant owners etc, and on unwitting victims, and on a virtually unstudied natural plant, when those industrial toxins and carcinogens etc remain unconscionably ignored.
A site called "Fauxbacco" (search it up) has most of the info on this still Taboo side of the "smoking" issue. Search up "Drake Smoke Illusion" for even more. No secret really...just ignored to save the criminals (and their political allies) who put those things into what they call "tobacco products".
When typical (not all) cigarettes are called "Pesticide Pegs" or "Dioxin Dowels" or "Radiation Rods", then we'll know we're on the right track.
idlex said "the smoking bans have spurred many people into doing what they would never have done before, which is to take a look at the science for themselves."
I have said several times in the last twelve months or so that the severe global attempt at tobacco control would not last as long as alcohol prohibition in the USA did (thirteen years), because of the internet.
What idlex pointed out is one of the reasons why I think that to be the case. Just think about how so many of us are able to look up information and communicate with fellow sufferers around the world at the click of a mouse.
...Despite which, Timbone, in the UK angry smokers, tolerant non-smokers and hospitality owners are not angrily marching in protest en masse. Why? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely puzzled.)
Hi Joyce. I would say that the reason is because 1. Some angry smokers, tolerant non smokers and hospitality owners do not have a computer. 2. Many do not surf the net a lot, and there internet knowledge is basic, so they do not even know how to go looking.
Having said that, I think that those of us who have looked and found facts and likeminded people on forums and blogs are working a lot faster than they did in the USA during prohibition. We are slowly but surely disseminating our knowledge, beginning to break through the metaphorical firewall in the media. I predict that this trickle will become a steady flow and that dam is going to eventually burst and lots of the general public are going to find out that they have been told lies, and that the MPs they voted for believed those lies as well.
I entirely agree with Timbone's comments. The internet is a new element in all this. All my studies of tobacco is conducted online. All of it! Without the internet I would be as much in the dark about it all as everybody else, and obliged like them to take the self-styled experts at their word.
But apart from - and indeed prior to - the internet there is a need for people to be sceptical about scientific claims. If people are not sceptical, they will take the claims of 'experts' on trust, internet or no internet.
And it's difficult for people to be sceptical, particularly in a social environment where almost everybody is agreed that secondhand smoke is a killer, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, because 'the debate is over'.
Nevertheless, sceptics who don't mind being thought idiots cause other people to entertain second thoughts, and very often this results in other people becoming sceptical as well. Scepticism is rather catching. And so scepticism tends to snowball. And at some point the number of sceptics begins to outnumber the 'true believers'.
There was a time in 2003 when most people believed there were WMDs in Iraq, because the government and media were saying so. Over the next year or two, the numbers of sceptics multiplied until they became the majority. And this is a case where Western governments and media lost control of the message they wanted to promote, largely due to the internet.
As best I can make out, scepticism about global warming is growing in exactly the same way, while the government and media message remains the same. There still remain a great many 'true believers' in global warming, but I'd guess that the growing scepticism will eventually get reflected in government and the media much like the absence of Iraq's WMDs.
Scepticism of public health claims about tobacco and tobacco smoke is at a much lower level, but is also growing. This is in part because Western societies have endured 60 years of anti-tobacco campaigns, and so almost everybody has been fully conditioned by this. Furthermore the medical profession is one of the most trusted of all authorities. So scepticism has an uphill task. But anti-smoking research is of such a poor quality that it cannot survive sceptical scrutiny, and almost all the claims of antsmokers are set to be shown to be untruthful sooner or later. One result of this will be a collapse in public esteem for the medical profession, and demands for its reform, as happens whenever authorities come into serious question.
None of this is new. The Reformation in the 16th century was the result of a lot of people becoming sceptical about the authoritative claims of the Pope in Rome, and simply refusing to accept them any longer.
I agree with both of you, timbone and idlex, yet in Holland there is what appears to be mass protest while here, there isn't. What are the crucial differences? Is smoking significantly more prevalent in Holland? Are the demographics of smokers different? Is the militancy of the cafe owners crucial? Do Forest's colleagues there have an intelligence network which enables them to gauge support for protest?
If it's the case that, in the UK, the internet is crucial and significant numbers of people either don't have access or don't use the Web for investigative purposes, then we can't win via the internet alone. Any growing swell of scepticism would have to be disseminated and the only way that I can think of is by the MSM!
There's also just plain old word of mouth. Quite a few people I talk to don't have access to the internet, or use it for other reasons. Just talking to people is a way.
And I've already given my explantion of why there is less resistance in the UK: the ban in the UK is far more draconian than in Holland.