The decision comes several months after the Cabinet suspended a complete ban on smoking in public areas, which had been planned to come into effect in the middle of 2010.
Smoking areas inside restaurants and cafes, commercial and administrative buildings, railroad stations and airports, should be equipped with walls, tight-closing doors and ventilation systems. The Health Ministry said that starting from January 1 2011, inspectors will be monitoring the implementation of the ruling, escorted by police officers.
Clients caught smoking in non-smoking areas will be fined up to 300 leva, while owners of clubs and restaurants will be fined from 1500 to 10 000 leva, the report said.
The decision on whether to adopt the smoking ban in cafes and restaurants, which have areas of up to 50 sq m, will be up to owners – but they can be either all-smoking or a smoking free zone, the report said. If smoking is allowed, people younger than 18 will not be allowed into the establishment.
Larger establishments will be required to designate separate smoking areas of less than 50 per cent of the total space.
The Bulgarian Government withdrew Act 56 from the Healthcare Act in the summer of 2010, pertaining to the complete restriction of smoking in all public places, pubs and restaurants, replacing it with "a more relaxed regime", the announcement said.
Accordingly, on November 3 2010, the Cabinet approved the ordinance, which will regulate how to manage, separate or segregate respective establishments in the future, in order for these to provide the necessary comfort to non-smokers.
Uncles Comment: If you are a health nut who likes going to pubs (probably not) then this is ok, but smoking is absolutely part and parcel of why Bulgarians go to bars and restaurants.People will even smoke during a meal.The fines are pretty big and I have heard that many places are closing down because it is impractical or too expensive to undertake the modifications.
One bar in my village gets alot of kids from the local secondary school coming in, the bar is less than 50ft so he either goes smoke free and loses the adult smokers, or smoking and loses the kids. Absolutely crazy, so he is shutting.
’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
ReplyDeleteWorld-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien