Pro-smoke-free poll fake?
Falsifying Antiraucherguppen surveys?
EV per smoke free last week released a survey that is smoked in Bavaria in every third restaurant. fairness to smokers then asked Mr. Ermer Pro Smoke Free Association to submit the study and to detailed, verifiable figures. Initially, this was assured, but the promise still not fulfilled.
Fairness for smokers has concentrated in about a hundred calls to the region 10, the survey attempted to review and restaurant owners / find inside that can remember a survey. To date, no one could answer a call of smoke-free pro confirm eV.
According to Daniel (Ermer), the study is based on a single question which is: Can I smoke in them? Fairness for smokers says: With only a single question, to draw conclusions about the actual conditions in the Bavarian cuisine is derived, is very bold and scientifically beyond the pale. Incorrect results are a consequence and a wrong interpretation of the figures may be, by smoke-free pro, wanted.
Under the current Bavarian Health Protection Act, smoking is allowed only in marked beverage catering under 75 square meters and in adjoining rooms. Only in nightclubs in adjacent rooms without dance floor. Young people generally have no access.
The study claims that 78% of people smoke in nightclubs and music businesses. The reader is taught so that is allowed in all rooms smoking. Fairness for smokers has been checked and found that all surveyed clubs and dance-hall operators to keep very strictly to the smoking ban and if so, will allow it only in a designated side room with no dance floor, smoking, which is not objectionable law. Especially the big clubs in the Passau area were initially appear more than once by self-appointed policemen and smoking can not afford any more violations of the law.
Furthermore, it is claimed that 34% of food premises or smoking are influenced cuisine have an adjoining room. Here are called by Ermer, Pro Smokeless Smoking Local and adjoining rooms in one lump sum. A comparison can not be performed because one hand is allowed in designated smoking areas side by law, on the other hand, smoking in the food influenced cuisine is prohibited.
25% of the coffee shops are loaded with tobacco smoke. Fairness for smokers notes that cafes are expected to largely influenced food catering and prohibited under the current Bavarian Health Protection Act, smoking is.
One also highly questionable study published by the Non smoking initiative Munich three weeks ago. Then you can drink beer in Munich, no smoking free. Exactly the opposite is the case. Investigations of " NO in referendum "for the area Karlsfeld were sometimes completely different than the numbers published by the Non smoking initiative Munich results.
Fairness for smokers stated:
- Pro Smokeless eV was holding back deliberately or verifiable figures show there can not, because no documentation or possibly falsified.
- Public restaurants in hotels are not included.
- A survey of the city of Munich shows that at least 85% of catering premises are smoke free.
- Verification of "No referendum on" the study, (In Munich, you can not drink beer without smoking) Non smoking initiative of Munich clearly refuted.
- The currently valid Non smoking Protection Act is sufficient.
Like to argue Mr. Frankenberger as Speaker of the Coalition for Action referendum Non smoking protection with the ease of verifiability of a total smoking ban in the Bavarian cuisine. But that means by implication that Bavaria's citizens are more stupid than the rest of the country, because they can not remember three things: smoking pub less than 75 m, smoking adjoining rooms and beer tents! The opposite is the case, as the recent PISA study has found.
Fairness for smokers says: total bans, no matter in what context are often exaggerated and mostly unnecessary. Total bans cause social unrest and dividing the population. The Bavarian majority of citizens is very happy with the current arrangement.
Popularity: 8% [ ? ]
Related posts:
These products may also be interested in:
- Bavaria in mourning , the interest group fairness to smokers (FFR) is a first sign of the struggle against the total ban on smoking in restaurants and ...
- The tricks of the anti-smoking lobby, introduced with great fanfare, the anti-smoking group "Pro smoke free" by many people because of their sometimes not understandable statements "pro-free brain" ...
- Opposition to the referendum is forming ÖDP- After the eco-technology enemy faction "ÖDP" has managed, with some false statements (many people even speak of "lies") 1.3 ...
- Bavarian artists say "NO" at the referendum, over 50 writers, musicians, and other arts and cultural workers from Bavaria and Germany call for people to request that the referendum ...
- Local drinks are influenced smoking premises? The Non smoking Initiative Munich, and the Medical Action Group on Smoking and Health have today in the premises of the Green Party in Munich ...
- Smoking ban opponents prepare for the hot phase of the opponents of the total smoking ban in Bavarian restaurants are good for the hot phase of the campaign ready. On a ...
- Opponents agree the referendum fair election in a recent meeting between Sebastian Frankenberger (left), the initiator of the referendum and spokesman for a real ...
I can only endorse the comments above! Moreover, I would note that the choice of my acquaintance many people (including me) have gotten absolutely no ballots. This ranges from Lake Constance to Lower Bavaria. Every adult human being can not even decide what he wants local haunt. The hosts should have the freedom to choose whether they want to sit in their economic or smoking Non smoking. What is required for us there? And above all, what's next? We must set ourselves definitely against this obviously fake election result for the defense! The small Kneipiers perish, because people prefer to drink their beer celebration evening at home when they are no longer allowed to smoke. And in my experience sitting in this evening, no local families with small children. I am of the opinion that smoking is one of the oldest beverages of mankind. This decision, we can sit in any case to us!
@ Thom:. There is no "hundreds of other studies." The vast majority of "studies" are so-called "meta-" to pick out the desired number from the EPA study, which a court has been assessed in the U.S. as a "fake". Maybe you should look at just once this study more accurately, not just the summary.
With You're right: you can not meet in the middle. Either you are for the exclusion of dissenters, and a total ban in restaurants, or you're sure to have dissenters their freedom. Either one is that we operators of hookah bars, pipe and cigar lounges enteigent and makes unemployed, or you oppose it. Either one is that they spread the lies of the WHO, or are they formed their own opinion. Since there is no "middle". Totalitarianism and self-determination are now times are not compatible.
I personally take my time, "NO to the total ban on smoking in restaurants" to write. If others do not, you need to contact the nominees.
What the so-called "negative consequences of smoking" refers to: I do wonder, where were once, as was widely smoked, except where it was prohibited because of fire danger. Sure there were a few people who had problems, but they were individuals. Today it is "in" when you smoke in the distance one sees, to give the dying swan, and coughed to sink to the bottom.
Anyone who wants to go smoke-free can do so now without any problems. There is no reason to demand a total ban in restaurants. No one has the right to suppress because of their own well-being all the others. That's what makes democracy. In a democracy must be room for dissent.
What is the "objectivity" refers to: The petition, there was virtually no counter-movement to ÖDP. And yet there was already lied and cheated. Already there has been alleged, if you do not sign it, would be "starting tomorrow smoke everywhere." I even have a town hall ÖDP the pilot said this, coupled with the fact that yes, it merely involved the CSU obliterate one. Frankenberger has even touted then as now, that it would indeed work in Italy as well. In Italy there are 1) an exemption and 2) it works but in some parts but not in many others. In addition, you can not compare Italy with Germany, because in Italy you can sit outside most of the year in Germany are just a few days.
But agree, we leave it at that: They want a total ban in restaurants, I want to get areas for dissenters. And even if the second-hand smoke lies were true, it would be no reason for me to educate people regarding some smoking pubs and take away even more and thus to ensure that they smoke at home again that grapes are on the sidewalks that the neighbors disturbed in their sleep and that many pubs have to close.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see .
@ Thom:. Do not go here "many are not appropriate comments." If where is "hidden due to low rating comment", then this comment has so many negative comments that it is unreasonable for the average reader. Anyone who wants to do the commentary yet, just click on the "Click here to see". And then the comment is there.
Otherwise, I'm in charge here, which is published on this page. This also extends to comments. Since I already had a claim on the neck due to a comment, I post any more comments that violate my understanding of applicable law. These include links to sites that violate German law such as copyright violations.
Promotional literature of the WHO and its collaborators published here, I basically do not, because why should an organization that is noticed by undemocratic actions and lies to make room for the free advertising available? There are plenty of sites that do that. I can not agree with my conscience.
What the label on cigarette vending concerns: Since you have to "Bavaria says no" to the Coalition contact. I have to do with the labels on cigarette vending nothing. Where the content for the Prohibition of desire itself, perhaps a little exaggerated. But if you look at specific regions in the U.S., where there is a total ban on smoking, even in the home and outdoors. So it is perfectly legitimate to point out, because there it started with a ban in restaurants, coupled with allegations that they had not planned. What, like you see today is a clear lie.
The numbers of KVR apply to the entire restaurant, not only for restaurants. This information I received from the KVR. And if you look at the numbers, you should even see that there are not many restaurants in Munich ..
The yes-men "argue" with clear lies and generalizations. The statement on the website of Yes Man: "If the referendum is going out with NO, will soon be smoked anywhere again" is a clear lie. The statement by Theresa Schopper, that all those who are not subject to prohibition decision, "vassals of the tobacco lobby is" a clear lie. The statement that through a total ban on smoking in restaurants there is equality for all is a clear lie. For establishments with outdoor dining are clearly preferred. And now I'm not even discussed in the main lie of yes-men to secondhand smoke lie.
When many people think their kids in tow to have a beer tent, that's their decision. You can also even their children in the calf Kuchl drag a completely smoke-free beer tent. Clear. Those who believe in the lie-hand smoke can not think logically. He looks only to tobacco as the cause of all evil. Since one can not discuss faith, you should leave it at this point. A Scientologist can not make it clear that there is no thetans. A believer in the second-hand smoke can lie just as much to make it clear that secondhand smoke is nothing but a lie invented by the WHO.
Only one thing: I've dug for years through dozens of studies. The very fact that science is in the passive smoking issue so divided should bring any factual argumentative people to think. Even courts have studies of the WHO or paid by their "scholars" is defective. Even the anti-smoking lobby itself has admitted, in terms of passive smoke to lie. As stated reason must be that they lie "because of the good cause," because people are too stupid to understand the truth. Read the blog of the anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel, there is clearly documented.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see .
The survey is supposed to be smoke-free Pro supposedly representative. But the fact is that the "survey" was conducted with fictitious guest calls, therefore, not to recognize as a poll was. This is not acceptable by scientific standards, and above all is highly suspect!
Well, you can try it even once. If yes to the secondhand smoke deaths also works well. 3301 dead easy once thrown into the room, which is relied on today everybody's grandmother, who feels harassed feeding the pigeons in the park by a fag. The press will have no check and of the so-called tobacco lobby has anyway never press releases, after all, is already unpopular enough, had to pull the trigger in the United States millions of dollars in damages and does not want to completely forfeit the policy:
Here again are excerpts from the letter of Prof. Dr. Grieshaber (the director of the trade association for food and restaurants) to Prof. Dr. Keil Krebsforschungsinstitus from the German, the "inventors" of the 3301 second-hand smoke deaths. Maybe there's a journalist out there rewriting the dpa news to silly and sometimes in the mood for hot ne true story about manipulation of public opinion by creating scientific "facts" and knowledge. Actually the very old hat, but always pulls. In order to invade Iraq had allowed Georgia Boy to "prove" once and only mobile poison labs ...
It is characteristic of the approach of the Collaborating Centre, that the first
3300 second-hand smoke deaths from this side, and named in the policy formation
be introduced, but now from a discussion of this calculation "ethical
Objection is rejected. "
We do not ask the question: "Is it really 3300 dead?", But:
• How to arrange the deaths of the cause named to second-hand smoke?
• Have you considered co-factors (eg other diseases) and methodically
controls, if so, on the basis of what data?
• The passive smoking-related mortality in the age group 85 and older, according to
this study in women by a factor of 2.6 (for stroke) and 2.2 (for
Coronary heart disease) are higher than for men. Referring now
Deaths on the population and calculates an age-group specific
Mortality rate, the result is a completely different relation, namely, almost 1:1. The
means that the mortality in both diagnostic groups between the
Sexes, only one has little or no difference. How are
Such artifacts, and the false interpretations in public
Discussions to explain?
• In volume 5 of the "red line" is at heart and circulatory diseases, a relatively
rapid restoration of the old vessel condition described. How do these
Results for the most part over 75 years old (usually female?)
Passive smoke-dead, whose death from secondhand smoke with the latency
Diseases is justified?
In summary, we ask Prof. Keil, author of the study, once again,
Transparency in its calculations by disclosure of the data base and the
Computational processes to manufacture. This is even more important as the numbers for political
Decisions had a massive impact. We need to know in this context is whether
These figures are justified or whether this is a mathematical-statistical
These errors, with the ultimate dead-hand smoke at all in connection
can be brought. If we can not get a satisfactory answer for this,
to raise the question of whether the underlying model at all a
produce comprehensible relationship to passive smoke can be dead.
The detailed questions to Prof. V will soon be available on our website
Made (www.bgn.de) to the public.
The discussion of methodological approaches to meta-analysis is correct
still out.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see .
The false information was spread deliberately ProRauchfrei nothing new.
The reality is quite different. Smoking now and then a small, full-smoking pub, everything else. In outskirts of Munich, there are communities where no R-bar or find absolutely no pub ...
Is the ban activists are really only for the discrimination and exclusion of smokers Diffamieung. That's what they really want to achieve.
NO in the referendum!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see .
Since the anti-smoking lobby apparently lies needed to the people for a 'yes' to the total ban on smoking in restaurants and in some cases to get somewhere else, I see the 4th July positively. Had the anti-smoking lobby arguments, they would need no more lies.
KVR The figures are for all catering establishments. And I trust the figures from a public place where more than a lobbying group that has been the goal as an association "tobacco-free society." And as the report shows, there seems to have been tricked but massive.
That it can be done without compulsion proves the last two years, the calf Kuchl which since then has been a totally smoke-free Oktoberfest tent. As for the kids: I'm with my kids never went to a beer tent (and go with my 9-year-old granddaughter is not in there). The noise and there are many drunks in my eyes is not the appropriate place for children. My children never had the desire to go into this tent, but wanted to go or what to snack carousel.
Since I am not Totalitarist, I write to anyone, as he has to educate his children. For my children have lost nothing in beer tents. For that I need but not a law, and certainly not a total that everyone should decide for themselves.
Only weak people or totalitarians need a strong state and a law for any crap.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see .