American Views Abroad

The emotionally roiling issue of whether to ban smoking in pubs and restaurants in Germany is somewhat settled on this New Year's Day in 11 of 16 states. Bavaria is banning all smoking almost everywhere including in private gatherings in restaurants whereas Hamburg is banning it generally speaking but not in receptions in separate rooms. It has been a long and very drawn out debate because of one publicly little known fact that lurks in the background. The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-1945 at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450 gives a detailed history of how and why the Nazis sought to repress smoking. The author concludes 'It means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish.'

Nobody likes to tell other people what to do with their lives and certainly not to criticize personal habits. Sitting in a restaurant where tables are sometimes shared with strangers and having smoke being blown into your face-- which happened years ago here-- and being rather roughly told the right to smoke is of a higher value probably was the beginning of the end of smokers' rights. Years ago at a parents-teachers evening in the classroom which would be used the next day it took months of heated discussion to get a vote to have smokers' breaks and even then, the teacher decided not to follow the majority's vote. 'I don't care what anyone has to say about my right to light up,' she declared and puffed away. Then again, there is former chancellor Helmut Schmidt who turned 90 last month who refuses to allow any ban on his smoking. You can't help but to admire him and his accomplishments.

Is it just a power play between individuals or is there a real threat from passive smoking? In Best of 2007 at www.medjournalwatch.blogspot.com the writer sums up what he has learned this year after looking at the scientific facts outside of the mainstream press. His take on passive smoking is that it does indeed harm and furthermore 'A second point is the fact that the victim of secondhand smoke is being harmed against his or her own will which must be weighted stronger that bad consequences of own behavior.'

Just how this ban is going to be enforced is an open question. Will smokers just continue to light up and pretend nothing has changed which often happens at train stations under no-smoking signs? In the end it's a bit like getting people to clean up after their dogs. There are laws on the books but little will and lots of heated emotions about whether to follow or enforce them.