Smoke Signals of Ignorance

The resistance of the Federal Association of the Concert and Events Industry (BDKV) to the amendment of the state non-smoker protection act in Baden-Württemberg¹ is problematic in several respects. The claim that the planned changes arbitrarily disadvantage the cultural sector ignores the particular responsibility organisers have to protect their visitors from the dangers of passive smoking. Unlike in public spaces generally, people at events often stand closely packed together for long periods, which considerably increases exposure to passive smoke. The comparison with freely accessible outdoor areas therefore does not hold.

The economic disadvantages the BDKV fears from stricter rules are equally unconvincing. Studies show that smoking bans have no negative financial effects in the long term². On the contrary: smoke-free venues attract a broader audience and create a more pleasant environment in which non-smokers, families and health-conscious people feel more at ease³. This positive perception strengthens loyalty to venues and can even raise revenue. The BDKV’s focus on possible short-term losses is therefore not only exaggerated but also short-sighted⁴.

An aspect that is often overlooked is the potential smoke-free events have for a wider target group. While the BDKV argues that such rules could exclude part of the audience, reality paints a different picture. Smoke-free events specifically appeal to health-conscious people, families and young adults who feel more comfortable in smoke-free surroundings. This group is growing, as social trends increasingly point towards health and sustainability.

Rather than promoting exclusion, smoke-free events create inclusion for those who have so far been shut out of smoker-friendly settings.

Another BDKV argument, that smokers might miss parts of an event because of smoke-free rules, does not hold up. The decision to feed one’s nicotine addiction during a concert or event lies with the individual. It is neither the task of the events industry nor of society to enable an addiction or to cushion its consequences. The solution lies instead in designing venues so that they promote health and support positive changes in behaviour. Anyone who leaves an event to smoke has consciously chosen against the experience: that is an individual choice, not a failing of the event.

The BDKV argues that enforcing smoke-free rules at events causes considerable effort and additional cost. This argument appears short-sighted, however, because the cost and organisational effort of disposing of cigarette butts and increasingly popular alternative smoking products such as vapes or disposable e-cigarettes are at least as high, if not higher⁵. Open-air concerts in particular often take place in nature, in conservation areas or in designated landscape protection areas, where cigarette filters are a considerable burden on the environment⁶. They are made of plastics that are difficult to degrade and can release toxic substances into the soil and groundwater. Even in urban settings, pollution from cigarette butts and vapes is a serious challenge that must not be ignored.

The medical arguments underline the urgency of tightening non-smoker protection. Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease with far-reaching consequences for those affected and for society⁷. Cardiovascular disease, COPD and several types of cancer are only some of the serious consequences of tobacco use⁸. It is particularly alarming that young people who come into contact with tobacco products before the age of twenty-one have a significantly higher risk of developing lifelong dependence. Experts point out that it is easier to break free from heroin addiction than from tobacco dependence⁹. In addition, passive smoking causes considerable damage to health¹⁰. These successes show how effective measures to protect non-smokers are.

The economic cost of smoking in Germany alone amounts to almost one hundred billion euros a year¹¹. This figure covers direct medical expenditure as well as productivity losses through illness-related absence from work and premature death. It is hard to imagine how the BDKV can ignore these figures while claiming that smoking bans are economically harmful.

The BDKV’s argument reveals a fundamental disregard for the social responsibility that professional associations should bear. Partner associations that side uncritically with this position must ask themselves whether they are living up to their responsibility. A serious internal discussion about whether such attitudes really reflect the interests of all members and of society is urgently needed.

Smoke-free events are not a burden but an opportunity. They allow the events industry to position itself as health-conscious and sustainable, and they create an environment that is safe and pleasant for all guests. The industry should actively support this path rather than block it.

Perhaps it is time for professional associations such as the BDKV to ask whether protecting cigarette smoke should really be the priority of a forward-looking events industry, or whether it would be more sensible to save their breath for the topics that truly matter. Tighter non-smoker legislation is coming, and the question is not if but when. Pushing against it now may delay the process, but it remains a short-term fix with no real prospect. And considering that 120,000 people in Germany die every year from the consequences of tobacco addiction, the events industry loses a considerable number of potential concert and event visitors with each passing year. Perhaps it is worth looking at the topic from a different angle, before the air really gets thin.

1. Ministry of Social Affairs of Baden-Württemberg, draft amendment of the state non-smoker protection act (Landesnichtraucherschutzgesetz)
2. International evidence on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality sector (www.dkfz.de)
3. Rauchfreie Gaststätten in Deutschland 2011: Drei Viertel der Bevölkerung für den Nichtraucherschutz (Smoke-free pubs and restaurants in Germany 2011: three quarters of the population in favour of non-smoker protection; in German)
4. Effertz, T., “Die Kosten des Rauchens in Deutschland” (The costs of smoking in Germany), Atemwegs- und Lungenkrankheiten, 2019
5. VKU study, single-use plastics and cigarette butts in the environment
6. Cigarette butts: poison for the environment (www.dkfz.de)
7. German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), “Strategie für ein tabakfreies Deutschland 2040” (Strategy for a tobacco-free Germany 2040)
8. WHO fact sheet on tobacco, May 2022
9. AMBOSS podcast, “Tabakabhängigkeit: Richtig ansprechen, Leben retten” (Tobacco dependence: raising it the right way, saving lives)
10. Study on reducing passive-smoking diseases (DEBRA), 2022
11. Smoking: consequential illnesses cost almost 100 billion euros a year, JournalMed, 2023