Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google Plus Tell a Friend
Home| Columns| Features| International| In Dutch| Dictionary| What's On| Jobs| Housing| Expats| Blogs| Books
 
 
««« previousnext »»»

Cafe owner wins smoking ban case

Friday 03 April 2009

The owner of a small cafe in Breda has been found not guilty of breaking the ban on smoking, the Telegraaf reports on Friday.

The court in Breda said the smoking ban treated the owners of cafes with and without additional personnel differently.

Cafe owners with additional staff had to ensure that workers had a smoke-free working environment, the judges said. This could be achieved, for example, by a ventilation system, the Telegraaf quoted the judges as saying.

By contrast, cafes without personnel have to completely ban smoking on the premises, the judges said.

In addition, bars without other staff are being harder hit by the financial effects of the ban, the Telegraaf reported the judges as saying.

The public prosecution office had demanded the owner of the Victoria cafe be fined €12,000 for allowing smoking on the premises.

Store room

The court ruling is the second to undermine the principle of the ban in two days. On Thursday health minister Ab Klink was forced to admit that a bar in Groningen has managed to get around the ban legally.

The bar owner has moved the bar itself to a small store room and designated the rest of the space as the smoking area.

Cafes are allowed to set up a sealed-off smoking area, as long as bar staff are kept out of the smoke.

The ban on smoking in cafes, bars, restaurants and hotels was introduced last July, despite fierce resistance from the hospitality industry.

Is the ban unfair on small cafes? Use the comment form to have your say.

© DutchNews.nl



 

Readers' Comments

back here in the uk, many bars are closing due to the smoking ban, in the uk its complete, no smoking anywhere in public places, apart from the houses of Parliment of course, oh and prisons and army bases, and a bar at the G20 summit in london apparently. I figure its all just another way for politicians to pretend they care, and make a few headlines. Vote for me I banned smoking!! oh and tax's on cigs can go up too.

By paul uk | 3 April 2009 3:29 PM

I think pull (and pin)-your-own-pint bars are the answer for smokers

By Truus van den berg | 3 April 2009 3:48 PM

The ban on smoking is good for the public health. Whether this is the case for big or small cafes: it doesn't matter. There may be some problems at the moment but for sure these will all be solved in the future as we learn to deal with everything. In any way we have to be careful with our health. Bans on smoking does for sure help the country.

By Just Me | 3 April 2009 6:00 PM

We have had no smoking in bars & restaurants for a few years now. In fact you can't smoke within 3 meters of buildings. At first there was a fuss by some but now it's no problem and the staf get to work in clan air. On our visits to NL. we have had to look for places that had no smoking. I say I'm glad they put in the ban

By Ann Marie Potter | 3 April 2009 7:40 PM

We have had no smoking in bars & restaurants for a few years now. In fact you can't smoke within 3 meters of buildings. At first there was a fuss by some but now it's no problem and the staf get to work in clan air. On our visits to NL. we have had to look for places that had no smoking. I say I'm glad they put in the ban

By Ann Marie Potter | 3 April 2009 7:41 PM

People should give up using car's,public transport,electricity,water,as the pollution from them are just as bad as smoking,just ban everything.

By leo | 3 April 2009 10:32 PM

Yes, I think it is unfair. As an ex-smoker, I did resent the fact that non smokers had all rights and smokers none whatsoever. Having seen so many children die of cancer, who never smoked and having smoked cigarettes, heavily from 13 to 50, I am still here at 56. I come from a third world country. I can't kill somebody who tries to kill me or breaks into my house, I can't sue anybody who tampers with my food everyday with chemicals, dies, "cold storage?", and sells me "fresh vegetables" which are a year old but I can't smoke in public places if I want to. I have known 90 and 100 year olds who have smoked and are still here. They lived in third world countries and ate food they hunted, planted or was always fresh in the first place. Nobody is looking into food and whatever we consume every day in so called "civilised countries"and is poisoning us everyday. That is the problem. I do understand it isn't pleasant for non smokers to be in the same room as smokers although they've quite happily done that in the past but I do think some thought should be given to the people who enjoy a cigarette and to the bars who have in the past catered to it, and now find themselves unable to cater to legislation and customers.

By Eduarda Chalmers | 3 April 2009 11:13 PM

It should be the owners choice of smoking or non smoking. If you don`t want to work in a smokey enviroment, don`t, simple. Stop forcing your will on others, idiots.

By scott | 4 April 2009 9:38 AM

Just imagine as many have. That you are not allowed to discriminate. But our governments are allowed to do it.

It makes me wonder why, there is so little tolerance for the people who actually wanted to smoke.

Surely a sane governing body of people could have let - the Landlord / ownwer of a pub decide? This way the non- and the smoker - publican included could have have had a say.

No, the powers that be, appear to think that interference is a better option. It makes we wonder where the tax revenue will be replaced? New tax for roads - sorry they are also useless.

Let's face it, the UK - is about taxes rather than being somewhere you can enjoy life.

The 'Art of Management' is not Mr. Brown. It's listening to your public and retaining choices.

In retrospect to the article - ban on small cafes unfair?

Well I think that when a smart lawyer gets his round it. Discrimination might be a path to travel.

The health system could be supported by smokers. Afterall they do pay a tax and in Britain that is rather large compared to the cost of the product!

By Martin Stow | 4 April 2009 2:57 PM

Of course this is fair. Smoking is dangerous for other people. It is fair to have health regulations for protecting people, regardless if some people like to do it. Businesses could reduce costs even more if we just got rid of all health codes, such as food safety standards, fire escape codes, etc. We don't do any of that because the safety of individuals is more important than making money.

By Matt | 4 April 2009 5:36 PM

Stop selling the damn Marlboro& friends and we come to an end of the delemma....I was smoking 20years glad I stopped I feel so much better and my breathing is amazing ...that's what I have to say..

By Minnie | 4 April 2009 7:50 PM

Of course it is unfair. There is no inconclusive proof that passive smoking harms others. Let the owner decide!

By Carlos | 5 April 2009 1:12 AM

You only look around the world at other countries that have instigated a ban on smoking in restaurants, pubs and other public venues to see that although it IS hard initially, it can actually work for the good of everyone and clients do come back to pubs/cafes even if they can't smoke. People are too often selfish and will frequently not do what is in the common good if left to their own choice. The costs to society for the healthcare of smokers and people affected by second-hand smoke are enormous; and as Matt (above) says 'the safety of individuals is more important than making money'.

By Julie | 5 April 2009 2:54 AM

If people want to believe that every smoker gets cancer, then the cancer rates should be going down; instead the cancer rates are increasing.

Let adults decide where they take their money. Governments & lobbyists are not good at running business or other peoples money. Businesses closing & owners using their last dollars to keep employed; strange that supposedly there was so much "support"; yet non smoking businesses find few non- smoking customers. If there was nonsmoking wanted everywhere, this wouldn't be needed.

Strange theres increasing rates of cancer in the world, since smoking has been decreasing since the 80's. Strange that countries with the highest smoking rates have lowest cancer incidents. Anti Smoker extremists; the gold is falling off your false idols, & lies are being exposed; people realize this is about hating smokers not smoking.

By Lynda | 5 April 2009 7:00 AM

Eduarda said: "I do understand it isn't pleasant for non smokers to be in the same room as smokers although they've quite happily done that in the past..." Happily in the past!? Surely you meant this as a joke. For too many years preferential treatment towards smokers was the rule. Let me have at least 20 years to enjoy a smoke- and stink-free environment to make the situation fair. Smoking stinks and is a terrible health issue for non-smokers as well as smokers.

By Canal Jumper | 5 April 2009 10:22 AM

Non smokers should be allowed by law to enjoy their drink, company and family get-together (without the clouds of smoke hanging in the air and poluting the healthy lungs and clear minds) during their visits to public cafes, pubs, restaurants, clubs etc. If smokers insist to smoke then do that in privacy, smoking areas, outside in streets and die slowly but individualy and in private, and without a large hospital bill from public social security funds, en-dangering personal family members and pets then that is not only your business it becomes public business.

By Small Brother | 5 April 2009 11:28 AM

I thought the capitalist "Free Market" and "democracy" would have some play, but NO people like Matt want to decide for us.....well I for one don't want Matt deciding my life...people should have a choice, a smoking or non smoking bar etc...let the "free market" decide. The owner of the bar/restaurant should decide, NOT the government and the ones that have the environment their customers want will survive and the ones making the wrong decisions wont....its pretty simple....take the zealots and crusaders out of the equation. PERIOD.

By alanposting | 5 April 2009 12:53 PM

I come from California, one of the first US States to implement a no-smoking ban in bars and restaurants. We had similar defiance in the beginning, but eventually, most people began to accept and appreciate the smoke-free workplace. It will take some time, but it will happen here in Netherlands too.

By J. Burt | 5 April 2009 3:23 PM

We need clean air meters in bars and resturants and in the streets as Amsterdam is now one of Europes most polluted cities

By bernard weir | 6 April 2009 6:53 AM

If a business cannot make a profit, it should close. That is the nature of a free market economy.
Also, non-smokers have been putting up with smokers stink since smoking began. Time for them to suffer.

By Darren | 6 April 2009 8:02 AM

I work with several smokers. They go outside to smoke (off course). When they return, I can't even sit near them because they stink so bad.
Why can't smokers keep their habbits to themselves and not force non-smokers to suffer?
If smoking could be done without affecting people around them, it would not be an issue. But smoking cannot be contained to the smoker, so it must be removed.
PERIOD!

By Darren | 6 April 2009 8:06 AM

yah for the smoking ban. enforce it hard, no exceptions. smoke em at home

By Michael | 6 April 2009 8:47 AM

As a non-smoker I am not given any choice but to sense the smell I do not like. It is like farting in public and everyone should smell.

I appreciate freedom of smokers to smoke... unless they do not violate freedom of non-smokers to not feel the smoke. If bars can guarantee that me with family and kids we can enjoy the fine smell of wine and food then let's those fellows kill their lungs.

By nikolai | 6 April 2009 10:07 AM

Restaurants and cafes should be smoke free, without exception. Personally I will not patronize a cafe or restaurant that allows smoking and, I have many friends who feel the same.

By Bryan | 6 April 2009 3:18 PM

Restaurants and cafes should be smoke free, without exception. Personally I will not patronize a cafe or restaurant that allows smoking and, I have many friends who feel the same.

By Bryan | 6 April 2009 3:18 PM

It's a known fact that smokers suffer from a decrease in their sense of taste and smell. They should stay out of resturants. They can't smell each other. If they could, they would know what everyone here who doesn't want to smell like burnt ashes is talking about. It's really a disgusting odor!

By AW | 6 April 2009 6:20 PM

Darren..i dont like diesel cars either..they stink more than gasoline ones and they smell to me..Why are they not banned???

By kostas | 6 April 2009 9:29 PM

Kostas,
They are trying to phase them out, read:

Deal reached on old car destruction grant
Friday 03 April 2009

By AW | 7 April 2009 9:21 AM

Darren, you missed the point about the "Free market"...When is it a Free Market when you take half the "market away"? ...and Bryan, you need a hell of a lot more friends, cause all of your smoke free bars and restaurants are going out of business. My favorite of course is the comment coming from nikolai I want non-smoking so the "kids we can enjoy the fine smell of wine". I would like to suggest some non-perfume bars and restaurants while your at it...you talk about stink, my eyes start to water and I start feeling sick...see we all have our own stinks.

By alanposting | 7 April 2009 12:31 PM

The problem with having smoking bars and non-smoking bars is that it is much more difficult to say "no" to customers than to say "yes." The result is that all bars become smoking bars (like it was before the ban) and non-smokers have no place to go without having to breath smoke, a clear infringement of their rights.

If their only choice is risk their health breathing other people's smoke, or staying home all the time, that's limiting their choices, which equals: limiting their personal freedom.

With the smoking ban society is saying that the freedom to go out without breathing smoke is more valuable than the freedom of a select group (smokers) to inflict their indulgence on everyone.

Having separate smoking and non-smoking areas in a bar amounts to two bars, one of which non-smokers will be excluded from enjoying.

Therefore the only solution is to make all smoking in bars/restaurants illegal. Then it's the government saying "no" and not the proprietor.

I believe smokers should be free to poison their bodies if they want to, but that freedom ends when it infringes on the rights of others. In my opinion the rights of others includes breathing smoke free air while enjoying a meal or a drink or just the ambiance of a public bar or restaurant.

By Scott Nelson | 13 April 2009 11:57 PM

I applaud the court in Breda for their foresight and stand against discrimination!

Wow, this victory in common sense has certainly brought the bigots and the gullible creeping out of the woodwork!

I suspect many are not ordinary citizens but zealots of Nazi anti-smoking organisations, passing on their propaganda to try and influence real ordinary, decent citizens.

Note the amount of comments that are similar to this; "We had similar defiance in the beginning, but eventually, most people began to accept and appreciate the smoke-free workplace. It will take some time, but it will happen here in Netherlands too". . "Bans on smoking does for sure help the country" … etc.. This is an anti-smoking propaganda tactic – they KNOW that smoking bans cause much damage, so they pretend everything will be fine in the end! Give the impression that smoking bans will eventually win and everyone will be happy - IT IS absolute, utter bulls**t and highlights how selfish they really are ; “I’m alright Jack!”.

Remember Lord HAW HAW? - This is typical Nazi propaganda -"resistance is futile" stuff! "The Third Reich only wants to free those shackled by democracy"

FACT; The amount of devastation to hospitality trade is massive!! (39 pubs EVERY week closing in the UK) but the zealots are not interested - they only want victory against 'smelly addicted smokers' - ANY and ALL collateral damage is irrelevant!

How about this for an attempt to reverse smoker discrimination! This person must really think that the readers here are absolutely stupid and totally ignorant!

“Having separate smoking and non-smoking areas in a bar amounts to two bars, one of which non-smokers will be excluded from enjoying.”

Here is a person who is happy to exclude smokers from ANY bar by claiming that he will be excluded from one in two, ignoring the fact that even if reasonable choice was allowed then smokers would also be excluded from one in two!! – How bigoted is that!!
DO not believe these fascist minority groups that want to control every aspect of smokers AND non smokers lives! SHS is NOT harmful, even primary smoking ‘harm’ is now being questioned.

If you are happy to regress to 1940’s National Socialist ideals – just accept this blatant propaganda, sit back, do nothing, put your head in the sand and ignore what is happening – BUT bans are being amended or not being implemented by many progressive countries where the informed will not accept Nazi style rule!

Wake up people; it is time to STOP these anti-freedom charlatans!

By Kin_Free | 14 April 2009 11:07 AM

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsletter| RSS| Advertising| Business services| Mobile| Friends| Privacy| Contact| About us| Tell a Friend
Apartments for rent Rondvaart - Amsterdam