|
Wednesday: An overcast and misty start but sunny spells later. Max 7º on coast, 13º inland |
||||
| Home | | | News | | | Dictionary | | | Features | | | International | | | Expats | | | RSS | | | Newsletter |
|
|||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
Smoking ban abandoned in small cafesWednesday 08 July 2009 Health and safety inspectors will no longer check if small bars and cafes are observing the smoking ban, health minister Ab Klink said on Wednesday. The decision follows a second court ruling which said the ban did not apply to bars without personnel. But cafes with staff will continue to face checks to make sure the ban on smoking is being upheld, Klink said. The minister is currently working on amendments to the smoking ban to make sure all cafes and bars have a smoke-free area, Nos tv reported. No staff On Friday, the Leeuwarden appeal court ruled small cafe De Kachel did not have stop people smoking inside because the law does not ban smoking as such. Instead, the law states that cafes have to take steps to protect staff against smoking. But this cannot apply to cafes without staff, the court said. Earlier, the owner of cafe Victoria in Breda was found not guilty of breaking the law on the same grounds. Appeals The public prosecution department said on Wednesday it is to appeal to the high court against the Leeuwarden appeal court decision. An appeal against the Breda decision is also pending. © DutchNews.nl Get the DutchNews.nl newsletter in your mailbox: Click here to subscribe
Meanwhile, while all this crap is going on it looks like New Zealand will phase out the legalisation of cigarettes entirely before the Noord-Zuid Amsterdam Metro is even finished! But as the famous line goes, cigarettes are reserved for "the young, the poor etc. etc." By Passive Smoker | July 8, 2009 8:17 PM It is all so silly! People everywhere poison the air (including me) with cars and planes and worry about other people smoking?? By Tom | July 9, 2009 5:14 AM By your reasoning Tom we might as well stop bothering about anything. Hey there's so much energy being wasted anyway, why bother turning the lights off. Everyone is wasting water so I might as well not bother saving it. We have to move forward with the knowledge we have now. We know secondary smoke is unhealthy, and big cars are not good for our planet so being intelligent human beings we can do something about it. By Leigh | July 9, 2009 8:03 AM Very well said Tom. The fact is people are happy to wave banners supporting any ban so long as it doesn't actually have a negative impact on their own lives. It's easy to demonise/look down on smokers and campaign to take away small pleasures, but hell, don't ever suggest to the populus that their alchohol or cars are banned - nobody wants to be 'that' kind to society or the environment ;) By osita | July 9, 2009 9:22 AM Cafes and bars should have the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking or not in their own property. The public will have the freedom to choose whether to go to a smoking or non-smoking pub or cafe. By chas | July 9, 2009 9:25 AM If you're in any way in favor of socialized medicine, then it IS everyone's business who smokes in public places, as sickness as a result of smoking / second-hand smoke does have a significant effect on man-hours of missed work, and thus on a country's bottom line. By Y0Mamma | July 9, 2009 10:26 AM There is no sickness as a result of secondhand smoke, so there is no significant effect on a country's bottom line. By Frank Davis | July 9, 2009 11:50 AM The state should not cover the cost for enforcement. As a smoker I feel the tobacco industry should cover the cost of enforcement. I know that smoking is bad but I don't feel the over burdened government should be the police for this. Too I feel the tobacco companies should cover health costs for they are the ones who can legally sell this addictive product. I used to be a 2-3 pack a day smoker but I am down to less than a pack a day and smoke organic/non chemical laden cigarettes, not that they are safe but less damaging than those large commercial brands like Marlboro. By PAul Martin | July 9, 2009 12:09 PM People with an anti-tobacco bias must be told by us smokers to SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN! By richard | July 9, 2009 3:02 PM If Government had introduced the ban, there would be no expence for enforcing it. Smokers more than pay for any medical care, by paying duty and tax on their cigarettes. Next, I mean already there are restrictions on alcohol. By chas | July 9, 2009 6:46 PM There are so many comments on smoking it make me wonder why alcohol hasn't been banned yet. Or pollution. Or drugs. You want to stop smoking? Stop selling cigarettes. Stop advertising them. Stop taking all the taxes governments still allow and make it legal. You allow taxes on cigarettes, the selling of cigarettes, you have to allow people to smoke them. Publicly. It's that simple. By Eduarda Chalmers | July 13, 2009 1:38 AM Place your comments: |
|
| Advertising | | | Business services | | | Mobile | | | Tell a Friend | | | Donate | | | Contact | | | About us |
|
||||||
This is a joke. It's the first step towards turning an overall blind eye.
By Michael | July 8, 2009 4:04 PM