However, she comes to the conclusion that smoking bans in the hospitality industry are futile, because „People in Italy unfortunately do not smoke less than before the ban, they just resort to smoking in the streets. So far there is no indication that a smoking ban in bars and restaurants might lead to a change of general smoking behaviour.“
Such a degree of forthrightness is something we would not have expected from one of today's health ministers. She frankly admits that the ban's main purpose is the decimation of active smokers. At the same time she refutes her Italian colleague's thesis about the ban's „positive“ effects.
Contrary to the concept of public health authoritarianism, Kdolsky furthermore declares that she appreciates the „freedom of the indivdual“, conceding that „in his or her own domain everybody should be free to do what he or she likes“.
As if this saying would not be a revolutionary enough feat for a health minister, Kdolsky's view of the Secondhand Smoke legend is a pleasant exception in comparison to the usual propagandistic delusions spread by her colleagues.
She states that there are „lively debates about this topic“, but at the same time admits
that “in view of recent scientific findings she cannot confirm“ the assertion that Secondhand Smoke causes up to one hundred fatalities in the Alpine Republic per annum.
How true! By contrast, Germany unfortunately seems to be ruled by credoulousness and the ignorance of scientific facts.
Another intriguing point is, that the alleged number of fictitious victims of Secondhand Smoke
given for Austria is proportionally (in relation to the total population) much smaller than the one
estimated for Germany.
On the other hand, Austria's smokers make up a higher percentage of the population. According to official data from a study by order of the Ministry of Health, the majority (!) of adult Austrians indulges in smoking.
This is not a small, almost evanescent minority that may be easily used as a scapegoat.
Finally, Austrian citizens tend to be more critical concerning the big cleansing project for a „Smokefree Europe" than other people in the EC.
4 comments:
There are two reasons for smoking bans and it nver was about health.
Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
De-normalize smoking.
Passing no-smoking laws is a big step in that direstion.
http://smokersclubinc.com
An alternative to smoking bans
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow
people to smoke...they simply want a ban that will push smokers
outdoors like outcasts.
_________________________________
It is true that smoking bans in whatever country are a derisive step to form a 2 tier community and set one side at the throats of the other. The answer is choice and education - not legislation. Smoker know that it is probably not the best thing they can do for their health. Non smokers now know that a ban such as we have in the UK is bad for their social life - in that we have 6 pubs a DAY going out of business. Ireland know that it does not reduce smoking - as their smoking population has increased by over 20% since the ban came in there. I run a company selling electronic cigarettes click here . It is not the answer - but it might just keep our pubs in business until we can get the Freedom to chosse back.
I think the smoke is beginning to clear. Facts are emerging daily which prove conclusively that ets/passive smoking as a killer is a myth. Who says so the EU's own Medical Committee for Employment and now the ECJ, Employment division.
The applicant, Mrs. Kay Labate, widow of former European Commission official Mario Labate, on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband's estate, contests the Commission's decisions refusing to recognise the lung cancer of her husband as an occupational disease.
Mr Labate was an official with the Commission for 29 years, during which time he was exposed, according to the Applicant, to a large amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. He was declared permanently invalid following the discovery of the lung cancer which subsequently led to his death. He submitted a request for recognition of the illness as an occupational disease.
The Medical Employment committee dismissed the claim and so it went to the ECJ who turned down the assertion with these words: The claims were. 'MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED'. It should be game set and match, there is no higher court in Europe.
Post a Comment