|
Wednesday: A cold day with sunny spells. Remaining around 0º during the day and frost at night |
||||
| Home | | | News | | | Dictionary | | | Features | | | International | | | Expats | | | RSS | | | Newsletter |
|
|||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
Assistant Controller  Senior Financial Administrator Inside Sales Engineer Senior Financial Accountant - Dutch Customer Service Representative Native Dutch with Fluent English Financial Accountant Sales Manager for DRIVE, PLC AND SERVO system automation Warehouse Supervisor - Fluent English ...more jobs |
Appeal court overturns smoking ban (update)Tuesday 12 May 2009 Small cafes without staff do not have to comply with the ban on smoking, the appeal court in Den Bosch ruled on Tuesday. The court said there are 'no clear legal grounds for introducing and upholding such a ban in small cafes and bars,' the Telegraaf reported on its website. That means the tobacco law which came into effect in July 2008 does not apply to small cafes without employees, the paper quoted the court as saying . A lower court had ruled the current legislation discriminates against cafes which do not have staff. Appeal The case had been brought against cafe Victoria in Breda which is a one-man operated business. The cafe faced a fine of €1,200 and closure of a month for persistently allowing smoking on the premises. However, in a similar case involving Groningen cafe De Kachel, the court found in favour of the public prosecution department. That case comes to appeal at the end of this month. The department said immediately it would appeal against the Victoria cafe ruling. The ban on smoking was introduced to protect staff from the effect of passive smoking. Bigger bars are free to set up smoking areas, as long as drinks are not served in them. But small bars without staff argue that they should not have to comply because they have no staff to protect. Debate MPs are to hold an emergency debate later this week on today's ruling which the Telegraaf says puts a bomb under the smoking ban. And the Financieele Dagblad reports that small cafe owners are planning to bring back their ashtrays en masse. 'It will be anarchy,' Jaap Brandligt of the 'save the small cafe' lobby group told the paper. In order to enforce a ban on small cafes, ministers will have to amend the law, Brandligt said. 'It will take a year before that happens and then it will almost be the next election. I don't think politicians will do that.' © DutchNews.nl Get the DutchNews.nl newsletter in your mailbox: Click here to subscribe
This law is a joke, like your courts!! Just never stops does it?? You pass a law that you are almost last in the world at passing. Then you start over turning it and changing it, Soon it will be little more then thought gone by!! By DR | May 12, 2009 2:23 PM Time for a quick rethink of the rules otherwise the bigger bars will claim the small ones have an unfair advantage and the courts will rule in their favour and the whole thing will collapse. By Shirley | May 12, 2009 2:26 PM What makes these people think they have the right to contaminate everyone elses air? The smoking lobby harp on about freedom of choice, but that freedom has to extend to those of us who choose not to breathe the toxic fumes and have our hair and clothes reeking with the foul stench. Surely a good compromise would be if smoking licences could be granted to a limited proportion of premises per area and impose a strict clean air policy on the others. That way at least everybody could be catered for. By Ilovemylungs | May 12, 2009 3:32 PM Are we surprised they don't have the bottle to stand behind a law? By EX-PAT | May 12, 2009 3:49 PM I still don't understand how governments can justify penalising smokers while simultaneously subsidising the tobacco industry (EU spends around €1bn annually subsidising tobacco farmers - strange but true...) AND reaping massive taxes from the sale of cigarettes. Perhaps continually persecuting end-users is not the way to go? Not that smoking's a great idea, but it is legal, taxed and less lethal than, say, cars. Why not go after Imperial Tobacco rather than Joe the Smoker? By Stephen | May 12, 2009 4:04 PM I'd say you chaps that put down the NL are better off leaving. The Dutch way may not be perfect but it's a lot better than most of our neighbors. Next time you're in the UK, Belgium, France Spain etc. take a good look around By Mike Silva | May 12, 2009 4:10 PM The law was flawed from day one. Would it not be better to give separate licenses to smoking and non smoking cafes? Then the public would be able to exercise their freedom by making a choice. By obi | May 12, 2009 4:14 PM I'm from California where a similar law went into effect. I lived in South Lake Tahoe in the mountains and it was irritating to see smokers having to stand outside bars in the snow smoking in the wintertime. Why are the owners of restaurants and bars penalized like they are? They pay plenty of taxes on their own businesses. Could there not be a sign at the front door of these that say By Cathy | May 12, 2009 4:23 PM If I go into any pub or cafe that allows smoking, I simply walk out and take my money with me - I'm sure others do too. After 6 months of walk-outs, pubs and cafes will either accept the ban or go bankrupt. By Aussie dude | May 12, 2009 4:25 PM I was initially recruited to come to the Netherlands on the 30% tax rule because the government said there were few people entire country with my expertise. Apparently they desperately wanted me. I am heavily allergic to smoke, so consequently I will leave the moment the ban is overturned. I guess the Dutch don't want me after all. The Dutch government needs to decide if it wants to be the Netherlands only for the Dutch or whether they want to be a 21st century international capital. By Matt | May 12, 2009 4:29 PM llovemylungs: you are not helpless are you? no one is infringing on your rights to breathe clear air. you have the freedom to avoid cafes completely! By Sean | May 12, 2009 4:40 PM Unbelievable! By Ron | May 12, 2009 4:56 PM I can't say I'm astonished. Dutch lawmakers rarely think through the laws before they pass them. I thought there was more to the issue than whether employees were exposed to secondhand smoke. I thought the ban was a health interest of all. By Bryan | May 12, 2009 5:07 PM everybody has the right not to enter a bar where people smoke. what is the problem? Let non smokers open their own smoke free bars and let the smokers alone. By Alexander Baldal | May 12, 2009 5:30 PM Ilovemylungs has made the best suggestion: a compromise that caters for everyone - I support solution based suggestions By Marek Leszczynski | May 12, 2009 5:59 PM "What makes these people think they have the right to contaminate everyone elses air?" says Ilovemylungs. They have no right to contaminate everyone elses air... just the air of their own property, which inturn you have the right to either go to or to avoid. By Geuzen76 | May 12, 2009 6:01 PM Hooray, for the Dutch small bar owners! Freedom of Choice is the way. A victory for Civil Liberty! Those that abhor smoke can always go to another no smoking establishment. Live and let live! By Barney Breet | May 12, 2009 7:17 PM @ EX-PAT. Unfortunately we are "ruled" by brainless people. At last,it seems that there is justice now; but better later than never.If you don't live in our country, you don't know how much things have changed and certainly not for the better;thanks to all those liars & deceivers that are called "politicians" who claim that our country is a democracy! My country a democracy? LMAO!! Forget it. By Ed | May 12, 2009 8:10 PM Very disappointed about the way the Netherlands has handled this, and I think it's really out of step with the modern world. Most of EU and US have been able to successfully enforce bans. Why not the Dutch? A smoking ban is about a wider issue - public health. It costs a lot of money to look people who become ill from smoking. This is really what's driven it in smoking-addicted Scotland. The World Health Organization considers smoke-free laws to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking ban policy is currently viewed as an important element in lowering smoking rates and promoting public health. When correctly and strictly implemented it is seen as one important policy agenda goal to change human behaviour away from unhealthy behavior and towards a healthy lifestyle. I'd like to continue to enjoy nights out in Amsterdam without getting the smell of smoke in my hair and skin, so please continue to strongly enforce the ban. By Smoked | May 12, 2009 8:21 PM Simply put, cigarette is the worst drug human has invented. Someone doing heroin or coke does not affect innocent others surrounding them, but cigarette smoking harm others health under the name of freedom of smoking? What a joke! By Cleanair | May 12, 2009 8:45 PM This is a joke. I'm glad this is my last month in this country. After over two years here I've had enough. By xen | May 12, 2009 9:44 PM I think Democrathie is worth nothing, if it doésn´t belong to the people themself! What is, if three people have to decide, and u got one intelligent guy and two fools to decide where the way is? Any PubOwner knows best himself, what kind of customers he wants to have, and place a sign in the window, and the customer can decide where he wants to go, or stay at home, and put a sign in front of his door, all non smokers are welcome! Stop spraying hate between people, there enough pups for all kind. By LittleWing | May 12, 2009 10:51 PM prity much every coment above is from an idiot By freefa11 | May 12, 2009 11:54 PM Why not restricted areas for non-smokers in the bigger cafes and restaurants? By Peter | May 13, 2009 12:32 AM I do NOT smoke but I prefer to sit beside someone who does smoke and enjoy it, over the dirty smells of cars,planes,filthy industry. The anti-smoke lobby is using this new hype to control the people. Why don't complain people with healthproblems about the industry or too much traffic,I wonder? By Ed | May 13, 2009 1:28 AM Love your lungs you have the freedom to choose to places that CHOOSE to go nonsmoking on their own free will- glad Holland has found common sense!! By Carlos | May 13, 2009 2:22 AM BTW Germany has also partially overturned their ban!! But has gone slightly further than Holland!! By Carlos | May 13, 2009 2:24 AM Sometimes the Dutch Way is a good way By Anna | May 13, 2009 2:33 AM hey...a slap for you antis...if you hate smoke..just stay at your cave aka home antis doesn't worth a life By hey | May 13, 2009 2:36 AM Nobody is forced to go into a bar that allows smoking. If the owner has no staff then no employee is affected. Simple. By chas | May 13, 2009 7:29 AM In the the land of the waffle, the Dutch use the term "Waffle" as their national motto. Definition: By AW | May 13, 2009 8:05 AM The sooner all smoking bans in their current format are overturned the better. Smoking bans have been based on flawed science relating to so called second hand smoke. The sooner the true facts are published the better. The simple fact is that the owner of the premises should be able to chose if their establishment is smoking or non smoking not governments. What are the non smokers worried about they will be able to sit in their smoke free establishments, smokers can go to smokers establishments, everyone will be catered for. By B7 | May 13, 2009 8:33 AM Dear Cleanair "Someone doing heroin or coke does not affect innocent others surrounding them" Please think very carefully about your personal credibility before making such statements. (Hint: addicts of these drugs don't usually earn the money to fund their next fix from a legitimate job.) By osita | May 13, 2009 8:49 AM Thank God....the courts have come to their senses. The people who don't like smoke, JUST GO to a place where they don't smoke....its not rocket science. Personally I can't stand perfume, makes my eyes water and it can't be healthy to smell....will those "can't find anyplace to eat for my family" group join me in the fight to outlaw perfume? By alanposting | May 13, 2009 8:56 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 polluting the healthy lungs and clear minds) during their visits to public cafes, pubs, restaurants, clubs etc. If smokers insist on smoking, then do but in privacy, smoking areas, or outside in streets and die slowly but individually and in private, and without a large hospital bill from public social security funds, and without en-dangering personal family members and pets, then suffice to say, that is not only individual business but it becomes public business. By Small Brother | May 13, 2009 9:06 AM Small Brother. How often do you go to the cafe Victoria in Breda? I expect the answer is zero and if so, why should it bother you? Non-smokers also die slowly. By chas | May 13, 2009 1:56 PM Simply put, cigarette is the worst drug human has invented. Someone doing heroin or coke does not affect innocent others surrounding them, but cigarette smoking harm others health under the name of freedom of smoking? What a joke! By Cleanair | May 12, 2009 8:45 PM Cigarettes are no more invented than most alcoholic drinks, which potentially cause far more damage to third parties than any other drug. I take it you don't touch or condone alcohol, Cleanair?
By anonsmoker | May 13, 2009 3:11 PM I'm praying that common sense previals. It is healthy and human to desire food, drink, the company of friends, and relaxing activities like television and tobacco in a public house. It is evil and unnatural to deny these things for the benefit of the nanny class. Reality check: There is no evidence that second-hand smoke causes harm to employees. All we know for sure is that employees enjoy their jobs, and the nannies are destroying the industry. By Pipesmoker | May 13, 2009 6:53 PM This is where free market pressures becomes an important tool, where if a business sees it is losing profits by not catering to either smokers or non-smokers it will either allow or not allow it in its establishment based on what is most profitable. Obviously this cafe owner who brought suit was losing serious business by this ban. If not why bring suit? No need for a nanny state. By Pipenigh | May 13, 2009 8:03 PM All the talk about "smokers" ignores the Big Picture...the industries that, with the help of most public officials, contaminated typical cigarettes with so many untested, toxic, cancer-causing and even fire-starting non-tobacco things that it's a wonder anyone has survived. We do not even know yet if PLAIN tobacco, without all that stuff, has harmed anyone enough to justify criminalization of that natural plant, or its users. By Baja K | May 14, 2009 1:56 AM Baja K. I would like to know why I have survived and am very healthy, despite having been exposed to second hand smoke for nearly seventy years, including over 20 years of exposure to my father's 60 a day habit. I have smoked regularly for nearly fifty years. I have been exposed to air pollution in London for over 20 years including riding a bike in the 1950s smogs. Perhaps it's a miricle? By chas | May 14, 2009 9:28 AM shure, we cannot generalise, and say see all this people are the same, actually we are individuals, but i think there is truth in it when i say, there is something much worse than people taking drugs, and this are the people which do not! That is part of the prinzipal by famos writer Carlos Castaneda, people which are allways strait, u never know what crazy idea they figure out next. They need the action. The world is big enough, and there are pubs enough for any kind of people. By Mr.Peace | May 15, 2009 11:00 PM The ban on tobacco has been created by politians, who smoke and make sure they can, but want their name in history. They haven't thought of drink, pollution, obesity, "fresh" fruit and vegetables" on cold storage for a year and filled with chemicals, meat, filled with antibiotics, chemicals and paint, which everybody needs to survive on. Nothing much is done about all of the above apart from empty talk. Except for taxes which cater to their high living (and they welcome on cigarettes and drink) and legislation which makes them look good. Where are the human rights and people's ability to think and decide what's best for them? Can we take one step without being told how? Where are my rights as far as eating is concerned? As an ex-smoker, I can't see why smokers shouldn't have the same rights as non smokers. Forget the health issues - the stuff we eat, and water we drink nowadays will kill us a lot faster than smoking and is legal. The civilized world is about the money politicians make on the very stuff they criticise. Smoking is just the latest fad. As for the non smokers out there, me included, I'm sure they can find places they can go to without the smell on their (expensive) clothing or hair. I found plenty of them when I was a smoker and was denied my rights. By eduardachalmers | May 16, 2009 12:16 AM OK, I wasn't going to mention it, but seeing as a few people have rightly pointed out that if a bar allows smoking I have the choice not to go there (and Ido exercise that right), I will tell you what prompted that comment. By Ilovemylungs | May 16, 2009 8:22 AM This ruling by the Dutch, is one which gives me hope, the dictorial nature of these smoking bans, on the guise of health is a serious incitement of hatred towards smokers, due to no significant evidence that show second hand smoke is harmful. If such draconian measures were aimed at excluding any other group of people from social interaction they would be denounced as exessive, especially the Uk and Ireland's laws which do not even allow smokers and non-smokers to interact of their own choice in a warm and comfortable place outside their own home. By Greg Burrows | May 16, 2009 8:29 PM I was amazed the Irish allowed such a restrictive rule to be allowed and even more amazed the Dutch allowed it, the English by nature are more limited and judgmental but the Irish and the Dutch allowing a smoking ban, very sad. By the way I do not smoke but am aware like smokers I too will die one day, so live and let live. By Tatiana | May 19, 2009 10:10 PM Smokers are always nicer more relaxed type people, they are always tolerant and often have an artistic soul (hence the amount of writers/artists who smoke). Non smokers who tolerate smokers are truly tolerant and open minded and anti smokers, well they are so often bitter, retentive, uptight tofu munching horrors (thats quoting David Hockney) and under the false allusion that avoiding that one vice will give them everlasting life, they are in for a shock when they get cancer or some other disease that takes them out as something will one day. By Anne | May 19, 2009 10:22 PM Place your comments: |
|
| Advertising | | | Business services | | | Mobile | | | Tell a Friend | | | Donate | | | Contact | | | About us |
|
||||||
So if you share your business out among your employees and form a co-operative, then they are all technically the owner. Can you then flout the smoking ban? This smoking ban seems to have little to do with public health, but employee rights. Odd.
My wife has asthma and is particularly sensitive to cigarette smoke. We thought we would try out our local cafe recently which previously was difficult to see into because of the cloud of smoke. It wasn't much better and we had to quickly drink up our coffee and leave because the smoking partition door was used so often that it might have well been left wide open. There wasn't even an extractor fan in there, so where is all the smoke supposed to go except back into the supposedly smoke free cafe...
By simplastic | May 12, 2009 1:48 PM