[Andy8]

France to ban smoking in public

France is to ban smoking in all public places from next February, the prime minister has announced.

Cafes, nightclubs and restaurants are to be given until January 2008 to adapt, said Dominique de Villepin.

Those found in breach of the ban would be fined - 75 euros (£50) for individuals and 150 euros for the premises where the offence occurred.

Smoking kills more than 13 people a day in France, said Mr de Villepin - calling it an "unacceptable reality".

Mr de Villepin made the announcement in a television interview.

"We started on the basis of a simple observation - two figures: 60,000 deaths a year in our country linked directly to tobacco consumption and 5,000 deaths linked to passive smoking.

"That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health," he said.

Treatment

Public places include stations, museums, government offices and shops, but not streets or private places such as houses or hotel rooms.

Mr de Villepin added the state would take charge of one-third of the costs of anti-smoking treatments, such as a patch.

"That would represent the first month of treatment," he said.

Several countries have already taken similar measures.

Opinion polls in France - often considered a nation of smokers - suggest 70% of the people support the ban, says the BBC's Valerie Jones in Paris.

The European Union's most enthusiastic smokers are in Greece, Cyprus and Portugal, according to findings published in May this year.

This is an excellent step forward.

[Pendergast]

You bet!

[paul w]

haha! first they ban plastic bags and now smoking in public. maybe they'll finally crack down on dog poo!

[SirCastor]

I'm not sure about France, but a few European counties have a negative birthrate right now, so I imagine losing 65,000 people a year is pretty rough on them.

Here in Utah we have the Utah indoor clean air act which prohibits smoking in public locations that are enclosed. I think there was something similar in Oregon when I was living there too.

How do smokers feel about this kind of thing? Is it seen as an encroachment on normal life?

[Andy8]

We are hoping to implement a ban on indoor smoking here in January 2007.

[Spliffdaddy]

If France was concerned with loss of life they would provide free airconditioners to the elderly.

How many thousands died due to heat?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Andy8

We are hoping to implement a ban on indoor smoking here in January 2007.

That will be great, I'm fed up with people smoking next to me when walking to work.

[Naaaaak]

GJ France.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Andy8

This is an excellent step forward.

I disagree.

Educating the public and creating an awareness of the dangers of smoking is a step forward. Enforcing separate, well-ventilated, non-smoking areas in public places is a step forward. Ensuring that workers are not forced to take in second-hand smoke in the workplace is a step forward. Providing incentives to businesses to become non-smoking is a step forward. However, legislating public smoking away, particularly as it relates to private businesses, is wrong and it's not the answer.

[Millennium]

Ah, the nanny state. This is disconcerting, but I dare say it's not surprising.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

That will be great, I'm fed up with people smoking next to me when walking to work.

Well it will not stop someone smoking on the sidewalk or street, only indoors, at the beach, in public parks and on outdoor escalators from Jan 07.

[Teronzhul]

Florida has a ban on smoking in restaurants. It is nice not having to ask for nonsmoking whenever I go out to eat.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Teronzhul

Florida has a ban on smoking in restaurants. It is nice not having to ask for nonsmoking whenever I go out to eat.

In other words, you like it when peoples' freedoms are infringed because it happens to be convenient for you to be able to pretend that people don't smoke. How incredibly selfish.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If France was concerned with loss of life they would provide free airconditioners to the elderly.

How many thousands died due to heat?

Much less than due to smoking.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In other words, you like it when peoples' freedoms are infringed because it happens to be convenient for you to be able to pretend that people don't smoke. How incredibly selfish.

Convenience? I just don't want my tax dollars to go down the drain for self-poisonning that will also be a threat on my life.

And yes, if they ban cars because of the pollution, I will also be cheering.

Hey, how about allowing heroine, cocaine, and crack in public? That should cheer your need for freedom now wouldn't it?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In other words, you like it when peoples' freedoms are infringed because it happens to be convenient for you to be able to pretend that people don't smoke. How incredibly selfish.

Like a lot of people, I clog up and can't breathe when exposed to tobacco smoke. Smokers can't tell how much of their smoke migrates out of their viscinity, but you could use me as a detector! It's horrible. So is it YOUR freedom to smoke wherever you please, or MY freedom to just plain breathe that's the question here?

I've seen people get pretty nasty about the whole question. "If I don't complain about your smoking, then you can't complain that I take a leak on your car" was one of the least juvenile. The point is that if you use up more than the air immediately around you, you're using up someone else's air.

And I've never seen how smoking "improved" a meal anyway. It dulls your taste buds and sense of smell, so it seems to me that it must make meals LESS nice.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Convenience? I just don't want my tax dollars to go down the drain for self-poisonning that will also be a threat on my life.

And yes, if they ban cars because of the pollution, I will also be cheering.

I agree.

[Andy8]

Think about all the staff that have to work in these establishments that are now not drowned in passive smoke and its side effects.

[Teronzhul]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In other words, you like it when peoples' freedoms are infringed because it happens to be convenient for you to be able to pretend that people don't smoke. How incredibly selfish.

Then I suppose I'm selfish, but I knew that already. You're reaction is pretty silly though. I'm not sure how me wanting to eat in a smoke free environment is any more selfish than an individual wanting to smoke. It just so happens that there are enough people in Florida who agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed in areas where there are families, elderly, children etc who don't need to be around smoke frequently go.

The law only applies to food serving establishments, not bars, clubs etc. No one is getting a cigarette taken out of their mouth.

Typically I find your posts pretty insightful, but this was kinda out of left field Mr. I wish Apple had never switched to Intel because I don't like x86 regardless of whats good for everyone else. Selfish eh?

And now I'm grumpy.

[Doofy]

When you tell a big bunch of Frenchmen that they can't do something you either get the standard French "f off shrug" or Bastille Day.

Here's hoping it's the latter.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Andy8

Think about all the staff that have to work in these establishments that are now not drowned in passive smoke and its side effects.

Did you ask all of those staff if they smoke themselves and/or mind second-hand smoke?

This is how fascism starts, my friend... ...through people like you wanting to ban things that other people like doing because you think they'll benefit. Ask yourself one question: WTF has it got to do with you whether someone smokes in a bar you've never been to and will never go to on the other side of the planet?

[Dakar]

I guess the question is which is the bigger right: Smoking or breathing clean air.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Did you ask all of those staff if they smoke themselves and/or mind second-hand smoke?

This is how fascism starts, my friend... ...through people like you wanting to ban things that other people like doing because you think they'll benefit. Ask yourself one question: WTF has it got to do with you whether someone smokes in a bar you've never been to and will never go to on the other side of the planet?

Most would not have a choice - they needed a job!

People should have the right to have a smoke-free workplace at least.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I guess the question is which is the bigger right: Smoking or breathing clean air.

This is not a valid question - it assumes that the two states aren't able to coexist.

See, in non-fascist democracies you have a choice: If you want to smoke you go into an establishment which allows smoking; If you want to breath clean air you go into an establishment which doesn't allow smoking. Not that hard to figure out now, is it?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Did you ask all of those staff if they smoke themselves and/or mind second-hand smoke?

This is how fascism starts, my friend... ...through people like you wanting to ban things that other people like doing because you think they'll benefit. Ask yourself one question: WTF has it got to do with you whether someone smokes in a bar you've never been to and will never go to on the other side of the planet?

Britain is next. Where is your Bastille?

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Like a lot of people, I clog up and can't breathe when exposed to tobacco smoke. Smokers can't tell how much of their smoke migrates out of their viscinity, but you could use me as a detector! It's horrible. So is it YOUR freedom to smoke wherever you please, or MY freedom to just plain breathe that's the question here?

I'm sorry to hear that ghporter, but must we also ban strong colognes or flowers in the park for the same reason? Or perhaps we should ban windows and skylights in malls for the benefit of albinos.

There are certain things we must accept when we go out in public, because we all share that space. There will always be some smells, sounds and images which we may find objectionable in public, but that does not give anyone the right to ban any of these.

The passing smoke of a smoker on the street may be unpleasant (it is to me), but your lungs won't get black from it and you won't get emphysema or die of cancer because of it. Automobile fumes are greater a hazard in this regard (though I'm not using that as an argument against the ban).

In your case, your body's reaction to it is more severe than normal. I would be in favor of a reasonable "smoke-free" area in the park or on the street, but beyond that, I don't think it's fair to curtail others' freedoms (even if it is to poison themselves) for your personal benefit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Andy8

Most would not have a choice - they needed a job!

People should have the right to have a smoke-free workplace at least.

Tired argument. If you don't want to work in a smoky place, work somewhere else that isn't smoky. Same as if you don't want to get chased by a dog, don't be a postman.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Britain is next. Where is your Bastille?

We haven't got one... ...yet... ...because the majority of Brits are sheep.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Ah, the nanny state. This is disconcerting, but I dare say it's not surprising.

Nothing like taking someone's freedom away to make people think you are doing a good job.

EDIT: And I'm not a fan of smoking. It sucks for me to be around it. But I don't feel this kind of thing does anything to improve anything.

[Pendergast]

I'd like to make a declaration: I am not against smokers. I am against being imposed their smoke. If you smoke in a public space like a park, I have not problem with that. If you smoke in an enclosed area like a bar, that bothers me., and that can interfere with my health if I have to go in those places repeatedly.

The previous example of Utah is going over board; people should be allowed to do as they please in their homes. However, if there are chidren in those homes, I have serious concerns for their health.

Of course, there are other threats to our health, but smoking is the most distributed, and accepted as a matter of fact, a habit, for too long. When it was acceptable for ceremonials, it had a different meaning. Today, smoking is the entertainment of an addiction that is just as hard, if not more difficult to get rid of as heroine, with equally dramatic consequences.

You want those consequences for yourself? Fine. But do not impose it to me.

[Sourbook]

Here in Philadelphia we just passed a smoking ban in all public places. Including outdoor stadiums. Finally I can enjoy bars, restaurants and even eagles and phillies games without breathing other peoples bad habit. It just went into effect a few weeks ago and I'm loving it.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

This is not a valid question - it assumes that the two states aren't able to coexist.

See, in non-fascist democracies you have a choice: If you want to smoke you go into an establishment which allows smoking; If you want to breath clean air you go into an establishment which doesn't allow smoking. Not that hard to figure out now, is it?

In reality, who has all the power in that relationship?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

In reality, who has all the power in that relationship?

Everybody. Equally.

Or are you non-smokers such a bunch of wets that you can't organise a no smoking pub/bar/restaurant between yourselves without requiring government legislation?

[Spliffdaddy]

Lifetime odds of death from 2nd hand smoke - 1 in 1,250

Lifetime odds of death from motor vehicle accident - 1 in 84

[mitchell_pgh]

Now they just need to ban urinating in public.

[ort888]

I was just in France last year and it seemed to me like just about everybody smoked. It's much more common over there. I don't think this is going to go over very well.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Lifetime odds of death from 2nd hand smoke - 1 in 1,250

Lifetime odds of death from motor vehicle accident - 1 in 84

Therefore we shouldn't do anything about the first one? It fails to add up for me.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Everybody. Equally.

That must explain why I have never seen an all-non-snoking restaurant in my time.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Or are you non-smokers such a bunch of wets that you can't organise a no smoking pub/bar/restaurant between yourselves without requiring government legislation?

Thanks for the ad hominem, chief.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Lifetime odds of death from 2nd hand smoke - 1 in 1,250

Lifetime odds of death from motor vehicle accident - 1 in 84

Ok. So what are the odds from dying from lack of AC in France for older people?

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, if you're worried about the harm caused by second-hand smoke - to the point you avoid it....then I assume you would, no doubt, avoid riding in motor vehicles.

You might want to avoid eating, as well. The odds of choking to death on food are much worse than the risk of second hand smoke.

While you're at it, avoid living. The lifetime odds of death are 1 in 1.

[climber]

The right to clean air trumps the rights of a smoker. Especially considering the link between second hand smoke and disease is pretty strong. There is nothing fascist about a democratic society making a judgement on which is more important.

If you want to smoke do it outside and away from others or stay home. Unfortunately that is not the way is now, but it is heading that way.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

That must explain why I have never seen an all-non-snoking restaurant in my time.

There's an excellent Brew Pub in Flint, Michigan that's no smoking and a nice place just East of Lansing that's no smoking as well.

They are the only places my wife and I dine at locally.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by climber

There is nothing fascist about a democratic society making a judgement on which is more important.

Sorry, no.

If you were to make a law which said that half the bars/pubs/restaurants had to be non-smoking and the other half could allow smoking, that'd be fair.

Making a law which prevents a 100% smoking clientele who're being served by 100% smoking bar staff in a building owned by a smoker from smoking on the off-chance that you might want to go in it sometime in 2034 is fascism.

And that's one of the other problems with fascism... ...people don't tend to see it coming until it's too late. Any of you who want all bars/pubs/restaurants to be 100% non-smoking are leaning towards fascism. Period. Your (plural) mindset is like that of a bloke who wants to ban gays from kissing each other in a gay club because you might one day walk in there and you don't like to see that kind of thing.

Live and let live. Open your own bleedin' non-smoking bars if you want somewhere to go where you've got clean air. Petition your local non-smoking landlord. Whatever. Just don't try for a 100% blanket ban sponsored by the government - because every time you do so you give the government more power to interfere in your lives, and one day they'll use that power against you, not for you. Ask anyone living under the Blair regime about that.

Oh. And I speak from experience. I can't go into the majority of restaurants because the mere smell of cooked fish/beef/chicken makes me throw up. Violently. Should I try to ban you all from eating those things in restaurants which I'll probably never go into anyway? No. Because that'd be fascism.

[ort888]

There is a non-smoking bar/club here in St. Louis and it's the current hot spot for my friends because of this. There is a lot of outside space for people to smoke in, but inside, it's strictly non-smoking.

[mitchell_pgh]

I was a bartender, and I would have LOVED working in a smoke free bar.

"open your own non-smoking bars if you want" is like saying "if you want to work in a safe environment, so work somewhere else."

[nonhuman]

I have absolutely zero problem with banning smoking inside public buildings. That's fine, some people have severe reactions to cigarette smoke, and public buildings need to be accessible to everyone. In outdoor public places, however, smoking should be legal. If someone is smoking around you in a park, you can leave or ask them to leave: net inconvenience to everyone, less than banning smoking or forcing someone else to put up with smoke against their will.

On private property, whether outdoor or indoor, it should absolutely be up to the owner of the property. Yes, there's all sorts of arguments about people being forced to sit in a smoke filled bar. Bull. No one is forcing you to sit anywhere. You want to be in that bar. If you really want a smoke-free bar experience, get together a group of like-minded people and petition one of your local bars to go smoke-free. You can probably even get some of the staff to join up. As long as there's enough demand for a smoke free bar, someone will provide one. The same goes for restaurants. This is no reason to force smokers to forego, especially in this day and age where, in may places, the non smokers have superior numbers.

And, for the record, I say this as a non smoker who enjoys smoke-filled bars.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I was a bartender, and I would have LOVED working in a smoke free bar.

"open your own non-smoking bars if you want" is like saying "if you want to work in a safe environment, so work somewhere else."

Yes, it is.

I hated working in an office and having to dress in 'business casual' every day. So did I petition the government to mandate that people be allowed to work from home or to ban business casual dress? No, I quit my job and started my own company.

[climber]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, it is.

I hated working in an office and having to dress in 'business casual' every day. So did I petition the government to mandate that people be allowed to work from home or to ban business casual dress? No, I quit my job and started my own company.

When was the last time a suit killed someone? Your analogy sucks.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I have absolutely zero problem with banning smoking inside public buildings. That's fine, some people have severe reactions to cigarette smoke, and public buildings need to be accessible to everyone. In outdoor public places, however, smoking should be legal. If someone is smoking around you in a park, you can leave or ask them to leave: net inconvenience to everyone, less than banning smoking or forcing someone else to put up with smoke against their will.

On private property, whether outdoor or indoor, it should absolutely be up to the owner of the property. Yes, there's all sorts of arguments about people being forced to sit in a smoke filled bar. Bull. No one is forcing you to sit anywhere. You want to be in that bar. If you really want a smoke-free bar experience, get together a group of like-minded people and petition one of your local bars to go smoke-free. You can probably even get some of the staff to join up. As long as there's enough demand for a smoke free bar, someone will provide one. The same goes for restaurants. This is no reason to force smokers to forego, especially in this day and age where, in may places, the non smokers have superior numbers.

And, for the record, I say this as a non smoker who enjoys smoke-filled bars.

Nobody is saying smoking should be illegal, it's simply a matter of smoking in public spaces. You would be critically upset if I was spewing asbestos in a public park down wind of you... so what's the difference if I'm smoking down wind of you. Both are bad for you...

Private property IMHO is very different. If you want to smoke on you private property, it's your choice. That being said, public spaces are different.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, it is.

I hated working in an office and having to dress in 'business casual' every day. So did I petition the government to mandate that people be allowed to work from home or to ban business casual dress? No, I quit my job and started my own company.

The obvious difference being... dressing in business casual doesn't cause cancer (or a number of health issues). Nice try...