Happy Birthday, Helmut Schmidt!

Today, a legend celebrates his 90th birthday. We warmly congratulate. Former German Chancellor (1974-1982) Helmut Schmidt, the most popular politician in recent German history , is also a role model for smokers. Well-known for his more than 70 years of heavy smoking (up to four packs of menthol cigarettes a day, accompanied by snuff), he constantly ignores smoking bans. "I smoke everywhere, except in a church" is one of his quotes. When the cool and rational Schmidt was asked whether you need passion for your work, he replied: "You need willpower. And cigarettes."

He also smokes when being interviewed. And as his star as a TV personality has risen again the past years, you can watch him regularly on German TV smoking throughout the interviews, regardless of whether smoking bans are in place. There are so many places with smoking bans in this republic. Do you really think I care? Although his hearing abilities have suffered from his age, his intellect remains sharp and he has been having a comeback as a political analyst and historic witness adored by many. He also smokes on American TV, as you can watch here. His 89 year-old wife Loki Schmidt is an equally passionate smoker (in fact, she has been smoking even longer, since she was 10).

A year ago, he and his wife were sued by a fanatical anti-smoker for flouting a smoking ban somewhere.
They just had a laugh.

In his honor we quote parts from an interview with German weekly Die Zeit he gave a couple of months ago

Interviewer: Didn't adults at that time [in the Thirties] have any sense for the dangers of smoking?
Schmidt: No, this hysteria didn't exist yet.
Interviewer: Would you advise young people today not to start smoking?
Schmidt: I wouldn't give unrequested advice to anyone.[...]
Interviewer: Have you never tried to quit smoking altogether?
Schmidt: No, I'm not crazy. [...]
Interviewer: Cynics argue that smokers are beneficial for common welfare: They pay billions of tobacco taxes and die earlier.
Schmidt: I can't do you the favor of dying early anymore. (Lights another cigarette.) It s too late for that now. (Helmut Schmidt laughs.)

We wish him, the concentrate of virtue , and his wife all the best.

German occupational health experts debunk passive smoking fraud

Typical myths of the anti-smoking movement are the alleged dangers to hospitality staff by passive smoking and the claim by an Italian “scientist” that tobacco smoke leads to more toxins in the air than fumes from diesel engines.

This propaganda was given a reality check by the German Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrungsmittel und Gaststätten (BGN), the Employer's Liability Insurance Association for the Food and Hospitality Sector, a compulsory body for all companies in that area, controlled by trade unions and employers’ organizations alike.

Last year, their scientific and prevention department took a closer look at the findings of tobacco control researcher Giovanni Invernizzi (and colleagues) saying that ETS causes more particulate matter than an ecodiesel engine running idle. This study has already been exposed by FORCES International in a thorough theoretical analysis a few years ago. The German scientists of the BGN did something else: they reproduced the experiment under equal circumstances. But they used various different measurement instruments. Their conclusion: With suitable instruments, the pollution by an idling diesel engine is much greater than the one by cigarettes. There is only one instrument that leads to another result: the one Invernizzi used, an Aerosol Monitor unable to detect a large part of the ultrafine particulate matter from the car.

The BGN analysis is now available in English (3 pages).

Furthermore, the occupational health researchers from Mannheim scrutinized alleged risk elevation for lung cancer among exposed hospitality employees. Once again, they did own empirical work, using data by health insurance providers about millions of employees in Germany, comparing the hospitality worker to peoples working in other branches of trade . Their conclusion:
“In contrast to the estimated data in the “calculated” models, this analysis of real patients’ data
showed results that prove a lot less lung cancers, and heart and bronchial diseases of
employees in this sector, compared to other sectors. There was no distinction between
smokers and non-smokers.“

If reality does not support epidemiologist charlatanry, then reality must be wrong.

In more general terms, the scientists critized the literature on passive smoking and lung cancer.
“The results of international studies vary considerably, to an extent almost
unprecedented in other fields of epidemiology.
The consequences of the usage of incomparable methods in the individual studies are not scientifically nor socially defensible.
The quality of meta-studies and overview studies is questionable because they cannot
be better than the bases upon which they rely.
It is astonishing how uncritically authors of meta-studies and overview studies deal with
recent studies from the literature and how airily they draw far-reaching conclusions.”

This analysis (7 pages) is also available in English.

The BGN also questions the invented figure of 3.301 annual deaths by passive smoking in Germany, the antis’ propaganda myth no. 1. In a scientific conference, Prof. Ulrich Keil, Big Pharma friend, tobacco control alchemist, and the inventor of these non-existing deaths, was faced with critical questions by the head of the BGN Prevention department, Prof. Dr. Romano Grieshaber. Keil reacted typically: He immediately fled from the conference room.

Speaking the truth makes you unpopular with anti-tobacco, so Prof. Grieshaber became the target of the usual witch-hunt. Behind the scenes, people like Keil tried to remove him from his office at the BGN, the WHO Collaborating Centre on Tobacco Controll in Germany attacked him, using the “well-known defense mechanisms like defamation, emotionalization, and the allegation of dependences” (official BGN paper).

We hope that the voices of scientific decency will not be silenced.

Landslide defeat for anti-smokers in Bavarian state election

Bavaria – Munich, the Alps, lots of beer, the alleged “toughest” smoking ban in Germany and a strong resistance against it, as we reported.
Thousands of tolerance clubs where you can legally smoke, some demonstrations, and increasing discontent with Nannyist government among the Bavarian people.

That set the context of the state elections on September 28. All three parties represented in the state parliament so far (Christian-Social union - CSU, Social Democrats, Greens) had voted for the smoking ban. But the main blame is to be put on the dominant force, the CSU, which has been endowed by the voters with an absolute majority since 1962 and won a whopping 61 % at the last elections in 2003. Formerly THE people’s party in Bavaria and a symbol of the Free State of Bavaria like pretzels or the Hofbräuhaus, the arrogance of power seduced them into health dictatorship.
The politically calm and to some extent even said to be apathetic Bavarians usually don’t get angry at their CSU leaders. But too much is too much. Smoking bans in their local Wirtshaus and next year in beer tents as well? Maybe even legislation on their beloved alcohol and food? It had become high time to give those that had lost touch with their constituents a slap on the face.

And what a slap, right in the face of the antis!

The CSU lost 17,3 % of their votes, not just their worst result since 1954, but also the heaviest loss of a party in any German state election since 1950. Ending up with just 43,4 %, they lost their absolute majority and need a coalition partner now.
The Social Democrats, also proponents of the smoking ban, booked their worst result ever in post-war Bavaria, and the Green Party, the most fervent supporters of smoking bans, could not reach their electoral goals either.

Winners of the elections were the Free Democrats who had loudly opposed the smoking ban during the campaign, and the Free Voters who alsohad critized this measure. Both parties received about 10 % of the votes each.

Certainly, the smoking issue was not the only reason for the historic defeat of the CSU in Bavaria. But is was a crucial one, and for many voters, it symbolized a broader picture of arrogance and state intervention into the privates lives of the citizens, and of policital changes to the worse. Some rascals are thrown out, and the CSU, pressurized by the Free Democrats as the likely coalition partner, will have to revise the smoking ban.

Smokers have shown their electoral power and relevance, they have raised their middle finger in a way that actually hurt the politicians. Well done!

P.S.: Forces Germany, as well as other groups and initiatives, had put a lot of effort into mobilizing and educating the Bavarian voters during the campaign. We launched and promoted a special website, and spread more than one hundred thousand printed copies of “Neues vom Schelm”, a periodic publication with issues about the passive smoking fraud and the damages done by smoking bans.

The situation in Bavaria

On January 1st, the “toughest” smoking ban for the hospitality sector in Germany came into effect. The Bavarian one. Separate smoking sections are not allowed, in all bars, restaurants, discotheques and beer tents, the fascist “solution” we know from the British Islands seems to prevail.
Quite a change for the typical Bavarian “Wirtshaus”, the traditional place to drink huge steins of beer, to eat “Schweinshaxn”, to play cards and to have a smoke. Next year, beer tents, including the huge ones at the Oktober, are to follow that road to Nannyist perdition. In an unprecedented effort to ‘re-educate’ their citizens, the dominating party, the Christian-Social Union (CSU), once led by the internationally (in)famous Franz-Josef Strauß, imposed this ban on the Bavarians.

But how “tough” a ban is it at second glance? Well, the law applies to hospitality venues “as far as they are publicly accessible”. When and if only a restricted group of people may enter a room, the owner can is allowed to decide about smoking. This restricted group can be the members of a club or, for instance, the invitees of a wedding party.

Many landlords and –ladies reacted immediately or after a few weeks or months: thousands of Smokers’ Clubs have been founded all over Bavaria, many of them part of the “Association for the Preservation of the Bavarian Hospitality Culture” (VEBWK), which alone has about 80,000 customers as their members. This organization used their strength in numbers for forceful political lobbying.

Many clubs only cover one bar, restaurant or discotheque so that many people who want to go out have multiple memberships of smoker’s clubs. But we should call them ‘tolerance clubs’ instead because smokers and non-smokers alike go there and enjoy freedom.

In fact, some people even complain about their purses stuffed with so many membership cards. Others are proud of that (see picture). A mayor of a Bavarian town mentioned that his teenage daughter (a non-smokers) carries at least a handful of these membership cards with her when she goes out with her friends.

The density of tolerance clubs varies from town to town and from region to region. In the Bavarian capital, Munich, an estimated one third of all locales are clubs of that kind.

Access for tourists, e.g. readers of this blog, might be a more difficult issue. Some clubs require membership applications prior to entering the venue, others allow instant admission by signing a form at the entrance. The annual fee of the state-wide VEBWK is 12 Euros, smaller clubs often offer free membership.

Medical care for non-smokers only

Not surprisingly to those familiar with increasing fanaticism of the nanny state, also in Germany there are first attempts of denying smokers equal access to medical treatment.
Dr. Jochen Mathews, surgeon at the Heidekreis hospital in Soltau (Lower Saxony) called a patient one day before her long scheduled operation on her cruciate ligament to tell her that she has to take a tobacco withdrawal course first. If ‘successful’ she would be entitled to the operation.
Asked by a journalist, the physician replied that he never operates smokers, only in acute cases of emergency.

Others hospitals reacted bewilderedly, some had never heard of such an incident, smokers are generally treated the same way as non-smokers.
The Heidekreis hospital tried to defend itself against the outrage created by its employee. The director claimed that the patient's alleged bronchitis would require a three-week postponement of the operation. Interestingly, the woman was operated a few days later in another hospital.

Apparently, some medical doctors don’t take the Hippocratic Oath but the Hypocritical one.

The court ruling - the positive aspects

Many owners und regulars of small German bars will remember the 30th of July, 2008, as the day when the ashtrays came back.
The decision of the German Constitutional Court brought some freedom of choice to many venues, de jure in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg, de facto also in most other states.

Although Germany is far from being in a post-ban situation, life has become easier for many. Whatever the states may decide in the coming months, social life and business figures can recover after the losses they faced.
And the discussion about smoking, smoking bans and the nanny state in general remains on the agenda.

The stakes are higher now, the antis push for total bans, but the number sceptical voices in the media and in politics increases as well.

As Joe Jackson pointed out in a recent column:

(a) The states now have until the end of 2009 to re-write their laws, and until then, smoking is allowed.
(b) The rights of bar owners and the fact that smoking bans hurt business, have been officially recognised.
(c) It demonstrates that action can make a difference.
(d) We have another year and a half to fight the antismoking fascists.

Forces Germany will of course take that challenge.

The court ruling - education by force

Although the decision of the German Constitutional Court offers a short-term relief for many bar owners and customers, its overall message is very dangerous.

It has been critized sharply not only by Netzwerk Rauchen - Forces Germany.
Dr. Josef Iseensee, Professor emeritus at the University of Bonn and a very renowned scholar of constitutional law, calls it "a pyrrhic victory for professional freedom because it paves the way for a total smoking ban and thereby for an ecological education by force of the complete population".
According to him, the court allows "brutal action" in the field of "health protection".

One of the eight judges, professor Masing, in his minority vote, fears a "patronizing paternalism" through total smoking bans.

Professor Winfried Hassemer, the former Vice President of the Constitutional Court, attacks the tendencies to "ostracize" tobacco as a drug - and the lobbies behind it. That makes him one of the few who openly point out that these bans are anti-smoking instead of 'protecting' anyone.
"The cigarette is a part of our culture", the retired judge, a non-smoker, says, "On the street, I sometimes walk behind someone who smokes a good cigarette, I smell that and enjoy that as well. There is no point in being radical about things that have to do with the general everyday life."

In addition to the mentioned jurists, professor Günter Ropohl, the author of "Smokers of all countries, unite!", also comments negatively about the ruling, describes it as being "contradictory and biased".

Smoking bans in Germany – unconstitutional!

A few hours ago, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe declared the smoking ban laws of two German states unconstitutional. Single-room pubs with less than 75 sqm that serve no food and aren’t accessible for people under 18 are now provisionally allowed to permit smoking .This decision indirectly applies to at least 12 of the 14 other German states.
Provisionally - because the states have to make constitutionally correct laws by the end of 2009.

Three owners of small bars in Baden-Württemberg and Berlin had called for judicial review. The court ruled that their entrepreneurial freedom is overly restricted by the smoking bans in the hospitality sector as long as bigger venues with several rooms may designate smokers areas. Hence, the court’s main legal argument is leveling the playing field.

The court offers two options:
1) A total ban without any smokers areas and separated rooms in bars and restaurants.
2) Exemptions for small single-room venues in addition to the possibility of separating rooms.
Option 1) is no solution as it would worsen the situation.

Unfortunately, the court echoes the passive smoking fraud. And only one (possibly two) of the eight judges thinks that a total smoking ban in the hospitality sector would be unconstitutional.

More information to follow.

Austria: Smoking ban regardless

On July 9, the Austrian Parliament has passed a tightened version of the national Tobacco Law, which - amongst other things - regulates smoking in the hospitality industry.
From January 2009 on, there will be a general smoking ban in bars and restaurants. This smoking ban is eased by a number of exceptions and leaves the innkeepers a certain freedom to choose.

Bars and restaurants over 80 square meters have to provide a separated non-smoking area that makes up at least fifty percent of the venue's total area.
If the bar or restaurant is not bigger than fifty sqm (or eighty sqm, if the local authorities agree that the available room cannot be partitioned into two separate rooms), it is totally up to the owner to decide, whether he or she wants to operate as a smoking or non-smoking business.
All smokers rooms have to be provided with warning signs ("Smoking endangers your own health and the health of your fellow people").

Although the original conception of the law comprised various
restrictions with regard to employee protection, most of those have been discarded. Nevertheless there are restrictions for mothers-to-be and juvenile trainees.

Austria: Surprising Health Minister

Like her counterparts, Austrian health minister Andrea Kdolsky is a self-confessed fighter against tobacco.
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.

Smoking bans in Germany – Jurisdiction

Laws are theory, jurisdiction is practice. And there have been some interesting court decisions regarding the German smoking bans.

In March, the State Constitutional Courts in Rhineland-Palatinate and in Saxony ruled that bars with just one room (thus no possibility of separating a smoking area) are provisionally exempt because they could face bankruptcy while waiting for the court's final decision. But this applies only to venues without employees.

In April, an Administrative Court in Schleswig-Holstein came to the same conclusion in an individual case, the State Administrative High Court recently expanding this to a venue with two rooms and one employee. All similar bars in Schleswig-Holstein can refer to these specific cases and ignore the ban.

Shisha bars are provisionally exempt from the smoking ban in Saarland, according to a verdict of the State Constitutional Court in March.

The funniest verdict came from an Administrative Court in the above mentioned Schleswig-Holstein. It ruled that a bar owner does not have to abide by the legal requirement to put up no-smoking signs. The judges just said: A no-smoking sign is not an effective means to enforce a smoking ban.

There were also a couple of attempts for judicial review by bar owners and individual smokers that failed. And Bavarian smokers' clubs that stood the test of law.

Why do most of these decisions have an interim character? Because the most important and powerful of all German courts, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, will rule in a few weeks, probably on July 30. Everybody is waiting for its position on the no-smoking laws of two states.

It is widely expected though unsure that “Karlsruhe”, the “Red Robes”, will declare parts of these laws to be unconstitutional. Yet it might be possible that they base this judgment on the uneven competition between one-room bars without the possibility of separate smoking areas on the one hand, and larger venues which have this possibility on the other. In this case, leveling the playing field could also mean abolishing smoker rooms altogether, at least as a legislative reaction.

Update: Also in Berlin, shisha bars (at least those that don't serve alcoholic beverages) are exempt until the final decision.

HS patients of all countries, unite!

Last year, German communist thinker Karl Marx (1818-1883), was ‘diagnosed’ with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a skin disease consisting of “’furuncles, boils and carbuncles’”. Historical research by British dermatologist Sam Shuster revealed that Marx complained about them being on his “posterior and near the penis”.

Well, let’s not dig too deep into the hypothesis that this illness may have influenced Marx’ scholarly works and political thinking. Whatever one might think of him, Marx continues to be an inspiration for economists, sociologists, philosophers, political scientists and historians. Today junk being the leading scientific discipline it is no wonder that Marx also inspires lifestyle epidemiologists. Two of them, Rudolf Happle and Arne König, from the Department of Dermatology at Marburg University, recently came up with “research” providing “evidence” for the cause of Marx’ skin disease.

„Smoking triggers hidradenitis suppurativa“ was their ground-breaking conclusion in an article in the British Journal of Epidemiology.

Sure, Marx loved his cigars, according to a contermporary, he was a “passionate smoker” – like many influential thinkers and revolutionaries. But how do the skin doctors link these two factors?

The quote two questionnaire studies, one of them carried out by themselves, saying that a high percentage of HS patient were active smokers, higher than the average of the population or the control group. Needless to say that the value of such studies is limited due to their methods (sampling, often without random groups and a very small number of cases, omission of other risk factors etc.). But, combined with some “in vitro” study, enough “proof” for the Germany scientists to complain about smoking not being recognized as a risk factor “of crucial causative significance” for HS.

This has been quoted by a few media, including the German Ärzteblatt. But they failed to mention the comment by the above mentioned professor Sam Shuster, directly following the Happle/König article in the same issue of the BJD.

“Happle and König go well beyond what is permissible from the evidence“

, he explains in his witty and sharp analysis, pointing out that of the 63 patients mentioned in their own questionnaire study, only 32 started smoking before their skin disease, 10 of them took up the habit AFTER they began suffering from HS.

“While a smoking trigger makes an interesting variant on the smoking gun, the notion that smoking fires HS is a totally unsubstantiated allegation."

Even for the historical case of “patient” Marx, the authors’ conclusion cannot stand scientific scrutiny:

“If most of his confreres smoked, Marx’s smoking habit would have no statistical significance“.

We would have to know more facts and data from that time.

For Shuster, the Happle/König contribution to blame smoking for all evils in the worlds, is a typical example for the abuse of statistical associations in epidemiology:

“Causal mechanics is something it cannot do, and the frequent, inappropriate attempts serve only to produce the daily horror stories and lists of unsubstantiated associations that clog our journals and newspapers. Use of this bastard epidemiological substitute for science has spread like a cancer; it is doing much damage to genuine research, and has done much harm to the public’s belief in medical science. Old Marx was a tough thinker, very keen on a scientific rationalism, and he would have hated this development. But he also had a wicked sense of humour, and would have laughed it out of court – between bouts of his smoker’s cough.”

Wise words. We can only add that these methods are a standard procedure in anti-smoking research and that people using this “bastard […] substitute for science” might themselves be “bastard substitutes” for scientists.

Smoking bans in Germany – Laws

Federal ban since September 1^st, 2007

- Federal buildings (separate smokers’ room are allowed, but don’t exist in many of them)

- Means of public transport and taxis (separated smokers’ coaches in trains are allowed but state-run monopolist Deutsche Bahn abolished them)

- General smoking ban for 16- and 17-olds in public (and prohibition of selling tobacco products to them, exemption for publicly accessible vending machines until the end of 2008)

The protection of work force is federal competence. Note that there is no total smoking ban for workplaces.

Statewide bans (starting between August 2007 and July 2008)

- Public Buildings, (public and private) hospitals, nursing homes, schools, youth clubs, cultural and sports facilities etc. (with some variety between the individual states, especially with regard to smokers’ sections and prisons)

- Hospitality venues (in all states except Bavaria, separate smoking areas are allowed)

Rules about smoking areas differ from state to state. In all of them, the non-smoking sections must be larger than the smoking sections. In some states, access to the non-smoking section and the toilets has to be non-smoking, in others, landlords are granted more flexibility.

A crucial question is the possibility of venues becoming smokers’ clubs, which exists in several states. This also applies to freedom of choice for non-public meetings (“Geschlossene Gesellschaften”) in bars and restaurants.

In one small state, bars with no employees are exempt.

Here you can find official comments by Forces Germany in the legislative procedures.

"Smokers of all countries, unite!"

Our opening fanfare is a text by Guenter Ropohl, an outspoken critic of “health fascism”. Professor Ropohl has a Ph.D. in engineering (same as the infamous Stanton Glantz, ironically) and later specialized in sociology and philosophy of technology. He has written a couple of excellent pieces on junk science and smoking bans.

The following call, which we wholeheartedly support, is a part of his website translated into English.

Smokers of all countries, unite!

Millions of our people are being deprived of fundamental rights, on a worldwide scale there are hundreds of millions. They are refused the right to enjoy tobacco in public buildings, transportation, and places like restaurants, pubs, and bars. So their basic right to social interactions expressing their own personalities and choices is drastically restricted. This will certainly not stand up to judicial review by supreme and constitutional courts.

This violation of basic human rights is justified by the claim that a higher ranking value is at stake, the health of nonsmokers. The environmental air, it is said, is polluted by tobacco emissions which, involuntarily (“passively”) inhaled by nonsmokers, will cause lethal diseases.

This claim, invented in the USA some 30 years ago, has been examined ever and again. Most of the studies it is based on, however, are nothing more than statistical estimates. The results, inconsistent and highly debated among scientists, are not able to demonstrate causal evidence for the alleged health dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Activists of public health, however, vehemently maintain the contrary and seek to abolish a basic human right just because of scientifically questionable speculations. To control an unproven hypothetical risk they fight against real freedom.

The smoking bans offend against a fundamental principle of legislation: the principle of appropriateness.
(1) Smoking bans are not a suitable means for establishing an additional protection of health. If environmental tobacco smoke really does not harm people’s health, smoking bans are not only unsuitable, but do not make any sense at all.
(2) Smoking bans are not required. Even if they may be suitable to protect a minority of sensitive nonsmokers against annoyance, there are measures more moderate that would obtain this protection goal. In public places, separated nonsmoker and smoker areas may be set up, so that everybody has a free choice. This had been successful in railway trains for years, until total smoking bans now are introduced that clearly have no basis at all.
(3) The disadvantages of general smoking bans are out of proportion to very questionable benefits. Millions of people have their participation in public sociability and mobility strongly interfered with. In work places, long distance trains, hospitals and retirement homes they are forced to painfully refrain from enjoyment. Finally tens of thousands of restaurant and bar owners are threatened with the loss of their business, and traditional pub and tobacco culture is being destroyed.

The managers of airlines, transport services and public buildings misuse the baseless fear of tobacco smoke as a cover-up for saving money on cleaning and ventilation through smoking bans. Yet the smokers enrich public finances through enormous sums of tobacco taxes. The basic right to full personality and social development is to be sacrificed on the altar of misplaced stinginess.

Managers and organization persons belong to the so-called ”higher circles”, and among those people smoking has come out of fashion. The “higher circles”, however, exercise the power in society. What they on their part, more or less voluntarily, are refraining from, they try to forbid others: the hairdressers and the lorry drivers, the office employees and the workmen, the shop assistants and the labourers, in a word, the “ordinary people”, who cannot stand up on their own.

The fight against smokers is a novel class struggle, a class struggle from the top. Health fanatics and managers form an alliance against the smoking third of mankind to deprive them of freedom and life enjoyment. Just as in former times the labour movement had to fight for their rights by forming powerful organizations, nowadays the smoking people have to resist growing suppression attempts. Smokers of all countries, unite!

Guenter Ropohl (Professor Emeritus of General Technology at the University of Frankfurt on Main, Germany)

Welcome

Netzwerk Rauchen – Forces Germany is the leading smokers’ movement organization in Germany, a chapter of FORCES and a member of The International Coalition against Prohibition.We are fighting Nannyism, Junk Science and intolerance. At this moment, smoking bans and the passive smoking fraud are major topics we are dealing with.

This blog has been created to satisfy the increasing need for first-hand information about developments in Germany in the English-speaking world. We will inform you about our activities and also cover Austria (German-speaking) and Switzerland (partly German-speaking) because there is a lot to discover as soon as the language barrier is bridged.

The first entries are to follow in the coming days.