Effective At Midnight: Smoking Barred In Bars In Finland

2007 is the year of social change in Finland.

Smokers: have you ever sat at a bar with a bunch of friends, beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other? Of course you have. It seems so natural to have something in each hand, doesn't it?

Some places around the world have already banned smoking in bars and such, notably Ireland, a country known for its pub culture. Finland is now on that list, effective June 1st, 2007.

That's why I'm sitting at a bar right now, chain smoking for the last few hours before midnight, when the comes into effect. Foolish? Yes. Addicted? Yes.

More than a physical addiction, the new law destroys a part of my social interaction. Beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other. Spending hours at a bar with friends, playing cards, smoking, drinking, getting up only to get more to drink or to go to the bathroom. No more.

Once the day changes into Friday June 1st at midnight, things change. To be precise, the law states that:
-Smoking is banned in all licensed premises (bars, restaurants, cafes, clubs, etc...);
-The law affects all licensed premises, regardless of size of type of license;
-Smoking within such establishments is only allowed if the said establishment has built a smoking "box", an enclosed, well ventilated room, for the sole purpose of being a room in which customers can smoke;
-The smoking room is off-limits to all drink and food, as well as all other kinds of entertainment;
-Workers are not allowed into the box, except in emergencies (fire, medical assistance to customer), or for security reasons (fight erupts in box, or customer is consuming alcohol or food in the smoking box;
-Cleaners are only allowed into the box after it has been thoroughly ventilated;
-The law does not apply to terraces or patios of establishments, but owners and workers of said establishments must make sure that no second-hand smoke enters the establishment through open windows or doors, or ventilation ducts.

The purpose of this law is to protect restaurant and bar workers from being exposed to second-hand smoke at work. The law also protects non-smoking customers from the same exposure.

70 establishments have filed for a two-year transfer period to the smoking ban, whilst a mere 20 establishments have filed for the permit to build the smoking room. The two-year transfer period is only granted to establishments which fill the requirements of the law, such as having a low level of nicotine and other chemicals in the air, hand in hand with proper ventilation, in accordance with city building laws and health laws.

It's an established fact that smoking increases the risk of cancer. Common knowledge.
Now that countries are rushing to enact anti-smoking laws, it's ironic timing for the IARC, a part of the World Health Organization to release a study stating that alcohol is a category 1 cancer risk substance. (Read the study at http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr175a.html). Great timing...

So, how will this affect the Finns? Remember that we're big drinkers, and bars are a packed on the weekends, as well as on wednesdays.

Here's what I see happening: Bars and clubs will lose business initially. Smokers will move their drinking to their homes, as well as parks and forests. Supermarkets and breweries will see their profits rise from the sale of alcohol. Bars will start to increase the comfortability of terraces, a huge venue of profit for any bar with one. As terraces are always packed during the summer months, bars will look to increasing them in capacity and entertainment. Small neighbourhood bars will start to face bankruptcy. Going clubbing will be chaos. (If you have to leave your jacket at the cloakroom during the colder months, and you can only smoke outside, how is that supposed to work out?)

Although the smoking ban makes life a little more difficult for smokers, eventually the whole bar life should become more enjoyable for all, as bars will have to come up with ingenious ways of drawing in the missing customers.

Personally, as a smoker, I half welcome this new law for health reasons, half denounce it as government interference into personal life choices of people.

Then again, I'm leaning towards the positive look on the issue... One, it'll save me money. Less smoking, less drinking. Two, quitting smoking will become easier. Three, new possibilities. And finally, for now, my social repertoire will expand beyond sitting at bars, drinking and playing cards...

A free table on the smoking side at a bar is usually the number one requirement for me entering the establishment. Now, with this new law, I'll be able to go to bars I've never gone to before, because they didn't have a smoking side, or no space at such area. Things will be different now.

It'll be interesting to see in this country which will come out on top: the bar atmosphere or the smoking. On one hand, smokers can now abide by the new law and conform to not smoking in the bar, or they'll stay at home, buying their beer from the supermarkets.

As irony, now that consumption of store-purchased alcohol will be on the rise, especially that of beer, the price of beer will go up soon, and the sale of alcohol in quantity will cease (no more 12packs... See my earlier post about the new alcohol laws in Finland...)

So, how will this really affect us? That remains to be seen... This will be a summer of packed terraces and empty bars... Which makes this summer interesting, seeing as the terraces are always full every summer. Maybe the terrace season will expand to cover the entire year, including the rainy fall days and the -30 degree winter days... Heated, covered terraces in December, complete with live music? Who knows? Maybe my promise of quitting smoking by the year's end will actually happen...

FEMA: Lessons Not Learned From Katrina

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) turned away willing volunteer workers.

The (botched) rescue operation managed by FEMA exposed the inadequasies of the agency. Lesson learned?

On Friday, May 4, an F5 tornado wiped the town of Greensburg, Kansas, almost entirely off the map.

Naturally, FEMA arrived at the scene of the disaster, to take control of the situation. So did willing volunteers, ready to assist in the rescue and recovery operation. So, had FEMA learned from Katrina? Hardly.

FEMA demanded that Greensburg needed to be "secured" before the area could be opened to real recovery efforts.

As hundreds of volunteers waited for over a week to be allowed to assist at the disaster area, hundreds of police from dozens of Kansas jurisdictions entered the city to establish a virtual police state.

In the immediate rescue and recovery, FEMA and local police worked to find survivors and the dead, as well as all and any firearms in the city.

Take into account that this is central Kansas, a region with extremely high legal gun ownership. Of the over 350 firearms confiscated by police immediately after the storm, only a third have been returned to their owners, leaving the firepower squarely in control of the state. And the Second Amendment is supposed to allow people to carry arms, protecting themselves from the government...

FEMA's mission was to safeguard the property of businesses in the area (I can see it now: bureaucrats in suits and National Guardsmen standing next to a pile of rubble, scratching their heads) and offer "low interest" loans to property owners affected. The National Guard was on hand as well to act as the enforcement mechanism for FEMA, while occasionally hauling debris and garbage out of the city.

FEMA eventually let the rescue volunteers into the town, all the while keeping a close eye and a tight leash on them.

So yet again, FEMA botched a rescue operation with its ineptitude. The most mind-boggling stupidity from FEMA came in the distribution of information to the affected residents. After a week at the scene, all that FEMA could offer them was a packet of information. The packet, however, had to be mailed to the recipients, and they had no mailing address, let alone a mailbox...

So, in short:
-A massive tornado wipes out your home and town;
-The government sends in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to provide relief and assistance;
-Hundreds of volunteers offer their assistance;
-The rescue and recovery work begins immediately, and the rebuilding gets underway as soon as the danger is over and the rubble cleared.

Looks good in writing, doesn't it? Let's look at what happened instead:
-A massive tornado wipes out your home and town;
-The government sends in a headless chicken, to provide relief and assistance;
-Hundreds of volunteers offer their assistance;
-FEMA rejects the offers of help, asking instead for money;
-Local law enforcement and the National Guard gather up all firearms they can find;
-After a week or so since the tornado visited town, FEMA, after a long period of silence, mails you an information package;
-The package never reaches you, as the mailman is searching the fields in the next county, looking for your mailbox;
-Finally, the volunteers are let in, yet aren't really allowed to do much, and are closely supervised;
-Your town is a pile of rubble, and you now live in a mold-infested trailer, courtesy of FEMA (if they have any to spare, seeing as most of them are in the South, populated by the former citizens of New Orleans). Maybe you get a tent;
-The government grants you a "low interest" loan, when you have just lost everything. Hence, the government is making money off of your loss, all the while making your financial and personal recovery slower. This way the government gets you at your weakest and makes you pay more interest on the loan as it takes you longer to get back on your feet;
-After a short while, you're on your own, rebuilding with the help of the volunteers who were kept away from you in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. FEMA, local authorities, the National Guard, and the Government have forgotten you...

How many mishandled rescue and recovery missions can FEMA be allowed to maintain like this? Why can't willing volunteers be allowed to assist when they are needed the most?
Hurricane Season is just around the corner...

Sources:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/18/after-tornado-fema-disarms-town-turns-away-help/trackback/
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120276.html

Study Suggests Executing Illegals

America's fight with the illegal immigrant problem continues. On one hand, the illegals could be granted amnesty, led on the path to citizenship, or they could all be deported to their individual county of origin. A new study suggests a third way. Execution.

Marty Kaplan at The Huffington Post reports on a new study by The Institute for Human Dignity, a Washington-based research center (not associated with the Institute for Human Dignity). The report, titled 'A Modest Proposal', suggests that executing illegal immigrants would have a significantly positive input on the American economy.

Providing amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants would cost billions of dollars in lost jobs for American citizens, the study found. Which in itself isn't a big shocker, as thousands of American jobs are already being moved out of the country in search of cheap labor. With amnesty for illegals, those jobs would also be lost within the country.

With time, the hiring of cheap, legal, labor within America would cease to be profitable, and you'd see former illegals complaining that they are losing their jobs to their cousins and brothers back home in Mexico, who'll do the job for less.

Would that make the former illegals, now citizens or prospective citizens, want to run back home to more jobs? 12 million new workers in America would raise the level of unemployment, forcing some of the workers to leave their new home to fly back to where they came from for the job they just had.

Executions, on the other game, would create am estimated 1.2 million new jobs in the penal sector, as well as reducing the tax burden on Americans who provide schooling and other services for there former aliens.

The figure of 1.2 million new jobs does not take into account the additional stimulus to the news and entertainment sector. We'd be talking executions no primetime television, sponsored by the leading tobacco companies as well as funeral home operators. Maybe even Taco Bell...
Read the original post from Marty Kaplan at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/kill-illegals-study_b_48788.html

Note: You might also be interested in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" from 1729, an educational tale of how the poor children of Ireland could seize to be a burden to their parents and become beneficial to the community. The story suggests that the parents should eat their own children...

TSA Humor

Here's a few laughs at the expense of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), courtesy of Schneier On Security (http://www.schneier.com/blog/).

TSA Cartoon:
http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/blogs/mramsey/uploaded_images/bilde-2-780665.jpg

Saturday Night Live TSA skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzqFz_nHZE

Global Warming Hits Finland

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007, 4pm.
30.4 degrees Celcius in the shade.
Location: Espoo, Finland.

No, this is not a joke.
This is global warming.

It is NEVER this hot in May in Finland. And not just hot. It's really humid too. The weather forecast for this week is rain and thunder, between 12 and 23 degrees centigrade. Every day. Instead, I'm sweating like a pig on a large open flame.

We're used to two kinds of summer here in Finland: wet and cold, or hot and dry. Usually both during the same summer months.

This year, the summer started early. It feels like the hottest days of summer. In May. The only exception is the unforeseen humidity. The unbearable humidity. We're used to dry heat.

As for the rain and thunder, the forecast wasn't completely off the mark. True, on mention of the burning sun and sweltering heat, but there's pain almost every day. Yet, it's not the summer rain that we're used to. It's tropical.

Take the last few days for example. It has been unbearably humid since about Friday. Yet sunny and warm every day.

Truth be told, the weather has been quite peculiar for the last week or so.

Friday evening and night was really misty in Espoo.

Saturday it rained in the morning, while late evening brought with it a severe thunderstorm that cut power and TV transmissions around Finland. Initially, it was thunder without rain. Then came the rain, pouring down on us. Hard. During the day was sunny.

Sunday was hot, with a cool breeze at most times. The papers were predicting that the heat (helle in Finnish...) was coming soon. More rain.

Monday was another got day, hitting some 27ish degrees at best. The late afternoon brought a few surprises with it. A rolling clap thunder which lasted some 10 seconds. Then five minutes of silence from above. Then another rolling clap of thunder, accompanied with 5 minutes of rain. Naturally, we we're outside at Seurasaari at the time, looking for squirrels to feed. After the rain, the rest of the day was nice and sunny, slightly cloudy. Ok weather for sitting at a terrace drinking a beer.

Today, Tuesday has been tropical. The kind of weather when you'd rather sit inside at home or an air-conditioned bar than be outside, with the exception of being at the beach...

The summer has started with a bang, a flash of heat that doesn't seem to go away. And it's only the end of May. Warn your grandparents, it's going to be a hot summer. In the mean time, it's time to bring out the shorts and bikinis, and enjoy this unusual weather.

Don't forget the suntan lotion!

(My prediction for the summer, all over Europe: death from heat exhaustion. The summer of 2003 was hot, and thousands of old people perished, especially in France. No need to travel to the tropics, because the tropics are coming to us this summer. And America, prepare for Katrina The Sequel... This might really be the summer when everyone realizes that global warming is not a myth...)