I'm half French and I'll tell you why most of the French women I know smoke like chimneys: weight control. Smoking is an appetite suppressant and they will do anything to keep their trim figures, even if it's not healthy. Bulimia is very common in France, too. One of my cousins came to the U.S. for two weeks and wasn't allowed to smoke in most places. She gained 5 pounds and as soon as she got back, she started smoking twice as much as before to lose the weight.

sandi, the next time your co-workers go outside for the twentienth time in a day to have a smoke, do what I do -- buy a pack of candy cigarettes and go on twenty different ten minute breaks every day too. Why should you be discriminated against because you're not a drug addict? Tell your boss that you have to have your sugar breaks or you'll have nervous fits, just like the nicotine addicts. Stand around outside and yammer away with your other candy co-workers. The smokers do it, you should too.

I'm a smoker who is as considerate as possible when smoking (please no comments telling me this is a contradiction in terms...). I don't smoke if someone is eating and I do my best to keep the smoke from blowing into someone's face (smoker or non-smoker - I know it's unpleasant). <BR><BR>However, as much as I love the States, I hate the way I'm treated as a second/third class citizen because I have this unfortunate addiction (YES, I DO know that I'm responsible and I DO know that people can stop - I just haven't been able to yet). The nanny-state attitude in the majority of the US encourages me to smoke MORE not less. And as a previous poster said, the moment I get home I love going to the pub and having a glass of wine and a cigarette - without having to be banished outside!!<BR><BR>And please note that as Smoky stated - this thread isn't about how much you hate smoke - so please drop it, it's been done before to death (ha! ha!)

To get back to the original question, I'm a European and a smoker. As I see it, public places where everybody, including non-smokers, have to go, should be smoke-free. This includes public buildings, work-places, buses, planes etc. and I don't get upset if I have to leave a place for a smoke or spend a long flight without a cigarette. <BR><BR>But public place doesn't mean every place a non-smoker has the wish to go to, namely restaurants or pubs. These are private enterprises which offer a service to customers and the owner of this buisiness should have the right to chose whether the buisness is smoking, partly smoking or smoke-free. Personally I prefer restaurants which have clearly divided smoking and non-smoking sections since in that case we smokers have the possibility to smoke without having to think about someone next to us who might be seriously inconvenienced by it. <BR><BR>But if a restaurant or pub is too smokey for the taste of a non-smoker, nobody is forced to enter it. There are enough alternatives to avoid starving. After all, nobody gets upset if a restaurant doesn't offer the kind of food one likes but one looks for another place. And nobody would think that legislation is needed to ensure that restaurants offer the food the customers like but instead one leaves it to the forces of the market. <BR><BR>It all comes down to a question of convenience. A non-smoker would prefer to enter every restaurant and every pub and find a smoke-free enviroment. Smokers like to smoke after eating or while drinking beer. As I see it, I don't have the right to smoke in a place where the owner offers a smoke-free enviroment to the customers and I have to accept the inconvenience of going outside for a smoke. On the other hand, non-smokers have to accept the inconvenience of either living with the smoke or looking for another place if they encounter a buisiness where the owner offers me and other smokers a place to light up. <BR><BR>Of course I don't have the right to do whatever I want, if this makes others uncomfortable, and in the case of a place which has to be frequented by everybody, my wish to smoke comes second place to the wishes of non-smokers. But I have the right to go to places which cater to my preferences, whether this is smoking, loud music, bad music, greasy food or even enjoying a good long after-dinner fart (not that everything on this list is actually part of my preferences). If someone sees a market in offering such a place to me and others who share my preferences, he has the right to do so.

I think Hans put a perfect ending to these messages. Hans, you nailed it.<BR><BR>As an occasional smoker, I am extremely polite about other people's feelings. <BR><BR>And there are times I don't feel like smelling smoke, and I'll go to a non-smoking restaurant. Other days, I'll feel a need for a beer and a smoke, and so I'll head off for a place where I can do that inside.<BR><BR>Total non-smokers I'd suggest getting used to the fact that a lot of European countries have different attitudes to smoking than the U.S. If you're obsessed with how much you hate smoke while you're over there, you'll have a miserable time.

Hans, your views sound good in theory but they don't hold up in the real world. Finding a nonsmoky cafe or pub, especially later in the evening, is extremely difficult. Believe me, if they were around, we'd be there! About the only places that aren't truly smoky are tea rooms. But even then...the Geordie poster was right, most places are very badly ventilated. About the only way to avoid it is eat as early as possible before the smoke stench builds up. <BR>A growing number of my European co-workers don't smoke and they don't like the lack of nonsmoky cafes or pubs either. And even my die hard smoker buddies can't stand the smoking cars on trains, esp. the Thalys. It's truly toxic in the smoking car, but you have to pass through it to get to the refreshment car. <BR>Hans, please tell me, WHERE are all these nonsmoky cafes, pubs and restaurants, particularly in France and Italy? Or in Germany, where there are cigarette vending machines on practically every corner?<BR>

xx: you are right, there are very few non-smoking bars, restaurants etc. in Europe. So there is probably no market for them. We have a free economic system, so anyone could start a non-smoking bar. So there are only VERY few people who are really bothered by the smoke.

I can happily recommend the Fumare/Non Fumare coffee bar in Basel. Non smokers get a whole separate room rather than just a few paltry tables stuck in the most unattractive corner. What's more, the few times I've been there, the nonsmoking side was MUCH more happening than the smoking side! <BR>Sjoerd, I thought French restaurants above a certain size now were supposed to include nonsmoking sections. However, it does absolutely no good if the ventilation system is so lousy that the stink and haze hangs over even the most remotely located nonsmoking table. <BR>In Brussels, a couple of well ventilated places giving nonsmokers fair treatment instead of the shaft include Au Vieux Saint Martin in the Sablons and Atelier de la Truffe on Ave. Louise at the Vleurgat intersection. Tagawa Japanese Restaurant also has ample room for nonsmokers. In Bruges, try Restaurant De Beiaard on Gistelsteenweg 483. Not only does the owner provide excellent nonsmoking tables in a pretty restaurant, he also serves the best steak I've ever had in Europe.

An interesting piece of info from Demi. regarding French women and smoking for weight control. <BR>I actually lost weight when I quit smoking and took up exercise... 15 pounds actually.<BR>Plus, in a country so famous for skin care products and lovely woman's faces, smoking, after sun exposure is THE worst thing you can do for your complexion. It closes capilaries on the surface of your skin, and decreases circulation, aging skin faster like crazy.<BR>I smoked for 7 years and can really see the wrinkles around my mouth from smoking.<BR>I, as a reformed person, am pretty sensitive to smoke HOWEVER, when overseas, I understand their laws are more lax, and it's more culturally acceptable. <BR>I just tolerate it... try to eat out of doors as often as possible, and usually when I am in a pub, I am enjoying myself far too much to let a couple of hours of second hand smoke make me ballistic. <BR>Of course no one should smoke, but heck! When I am in Europe I just get over it.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the law passed in California, banning smoking in restaurants and bars, was NOT done for the health of non-smoking customers, who may spend only one evening a month in a smoky bar or restaurant. Rather, it was done for the health of employees, who spend far more time around smoke. One may disagree with the concept, of course, and argue that employees could choose to work somewhere else, but the concept at work is that employers need to provide a safe workplace. <BR><BR>Here's an interesting article entitled "Study: Bartenders' health better after California smoking ban" <BR><BR>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/<BR><BR>Now, one can, from a libertarian perspective, argue that government has no business whatsover dictating working conditions of an employer. One can argue that an employer should have the right to create as dangerous of a work environment as they choose as long as they inform prospective employees of the potential risks so they can then decide whether or not they want to work there. <BR><BR>But, if one feels that government does have the right to dictate what it feels are safe working conditions, then what California did seems to fall under this philosophy.

Capo, <BR><BR>You have fallen into the same simple approach to the problem as that of the various legislators. If the issue is the health of the workers, there are several other options available. This "all or none" outlook effectively usurps the rights of the proprietor in favor of a simple, and lazy, answer to a problem. As with any potentially hazardous job, the first line of attack should be to drastically reduce the risk. To require a massive air filtration system would easily be one approach. If you wanted to carry it to an obsurd extreme, you could require the employees to wear gas masks, effectively assuring a non smoking environment. This dogmatic approach would make more since than to simply outlaw the use of a legal substance. Further, the current approach to remove what should be constitutional rights of choice, is much more offensive to me than the potential hazard of second-hand smoke. <BR><BR>Regardless, a middle ground could be reached if we had reasonable people. Obviously, this seems highly unlikely! Perhaps we can legislate that people from California are no longer allowed to vote.

"Constitutional rights of choice"? Would you be so kind as to direct me towards the amendment which provides that right, please?<BR> <BR>

Cuda, I appreciate your comments but, actually, I've fallen nowhere since I didn't say that I agreed with California's smoking ban. <BR><BR>I was just trying to point out the reason for it, that it was intended (in my understanding, anyway) to protect employees -- people who inhale second-hand smoke day after day -- rather than other customers.<BR><BR>I, too, think that drastically reducing the health risk to employees via other means would be a reasonable approach. <BR><BR>P.S. Though no legal scholar, I have the same question as "lawyer." <BR>

Okay, <BR><BR>I am no legal scholar myself but I think we can debate the 14th amendment....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.<BR><BR>The two areas of debate seem to be "due process of law" and "deprive any person...'liberty'. <BR><BR>Lawyer, I obviously believe the right to choose is covered under the heading "liberty". The decision is mine to enter a smoke-filled bar or to find one that is smoke free.<BR><BR>Capo, I apologise for the assumption. Your point is well made. The simple approach to an issue that allows a government to take precedence over a business owners right to cater to a clientele who indulge in a legal product, really upsets me. <BR><BR>If we allow that the protection of general health is a reasonable use of governmental powers, then we can reasonably argue that butter and ice cream should be banned for its contribution to obesity and the heart disease and diabetes that follow.

When I hear you guys complaining about your drug farms half as much as you do about smokers I might believe you are honest.<BR>As for "so quit", why don't you tell that to your own dope addicts instead of bombing South America!<BR>Perhaps we should send the RAF to bomb Virginia!<BR>Double standards??<BR>The problem is that the US is addicted to drug exports - just quit!<BR>Also, you say smokers have a choice - so do you, stay home & count up your portfolios.<BR>Nobody is FORCING you to operate drug factories & push it to 3rd world kids.<BR>You have more choice than the addicts you create so stop whining.<BR> Some perspective :how many European visitors to the US ask for the gun laws to be changed for tourist safety?what would the US reaction be to such arrogance?<BR>I can give examples of tourists shot dead because they didn't understand the US concept of "security".<BR> Vs-How many American tourists got killed by passive smoking in Europe?<BR>None.<BR>

Thanks, Cuda. <BR><BR>While some individuals may feel differently, as a society, we *do* (apparently) feel that the protection of general health is a reasonable use of governmental powers. For one thing, we have laws regulating the workplace, such as those under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. For another, we have laws regulating the general public, such as seat belt laws and motorcyle helmet laws. We also ban certain drugs (while, of course, not banning others such as alcohol and nicotine.) <BR><BR>So the way I see it is we've already established the general principle that we feel that the protection of general health is a reasonable use of governmental powers. Where we tend to differ is regarding what we feel is the appropriate extent, or degree. <BR><BR>

As a non smoker, who doesn't appreciate<BR>going to bed with hair that smells like an ashtray after a night out, I go out of my way to be rude to smokers. If I've had a few beers and can muster up gas, I try to walk past a table of smokers and let them have it. I'm serious. Yes this is immature but I have to admit I get caught up in the mob mentality we non-smokers have since we are the majority. I feel I'm entitled to a little fun since I'm paying sky high premiums to cover your future lung operations. Hats off to California by the way! It was nice to be able to sit in a bar again.<BR> <BR>

Is the ban on smoking in bars in effect anywhere besides California? I have never been in a bar on the east coast where you weren't allowed to smoke. I also can't imagine anyone in any bar I've been to in the US delivering an indignant lecture to a bunch of strangers on the evils of smoking and the cost of their addiction to society without being laughed at or perhaps punched out if they happen to turn their venom on the wrong guy. I don't smoke myself either, but I really never cease to be amazed by the petulance of the anti-smoking crowd, who really impress one as the kind of charming and fun people you've always been dying to know. <BR>

I don't smoke, and I don't like smoke. However I am also of the opinion that some places are going to be smoky and I might as well get used to the idea.<BR><BR>However having said that I can remember a lot of places where smoking used to be allowed that seem inconceivable now. Examples are: Top decks of buses, theatres and cinemas, certain carriages on the tube (you can imagine what THEY were like). These have all died out and perhaps other places will follow in turn.<BR><BR>The latest instance of over reaction is that Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (accept no imitations)have banned smoking in an outdoor stadium!<BR><BR>If you want a drink/pub meal without smoke look out for the wetherspoon chain, as they all have no smoking areas.

Erlsegaard, Boulder, Colorado has successfully banned smoking in bars and restaurants. The residents are quite happy about it but it does make Boulder the butt of jokes around the rest of Colorado.<BR>We are a town of extreme athletes and health nuts, so we haven't had any challenges to the situation. You would feel uncomfortable lighting up in an open, public area (as I do when I rarely smoke) but I doub't anyone would say anything to you.<BR>I was verbally attacked, however, in a Boulder bar for ordering a 'dirty' martini and thus offending a German martini purist (fresh off the plane).