Cimbrone

Carrybean--You've really got it backwards. It's those dying of AIDS who some are saying deserved it. And I don't know where you get your news, but there are plenty of celebrities who are known to have died of AIDS.

xyz123

Everywhere the ban has been tried and enforced, it has worked and as a matter of fact almost 99% of people agree on its benefits whether for health reasons or just to make food and drink taste the way they're supposed to without the contamination of those cancer sticks...and then of course there is the fact that there is no doubt whatsoever that secondhand smoke kills DIRECTLY.

To equate smoking with obesity or drunk driving is absurd..drunk driving is already against the law the problem is lack of enforcement (or setting up automobiles, which can be done, not to start when a drunk driver tries to start it) and obesity doesn't HURT me...I won't lose my life because somebody sitting next to me is obese...I might be uncomfortable for a limited period of time but as soon as that person is out of site that's the end.

The damage that second hand smoke does to my lungs remains with me long after I leave the restaurant or bar or whatever.

I would hope this ban also applies to outdoor attractions...I was at Disneyland Paris and the number of people walking around with their idiotic cancer sticks destroys the atmosphere of the place...at Disneyland in California and Disneyworld in Florida, smoking is banned except in designated places. Frankly it should be banned period.

PalenqueBob

<Like it or not, all western Europeans have pretty much lost all sense of individual choice and freedom with regard to almost everything>

this applies to my right not to breathe second hand smoke - right? My individual choice to have a smoker's right to puff away ends at my nose! It works both ways so this is a spurious argument.

The reason Starbucks, now all over Paris, are so popular it seems is a large part due to its strict non-smoking policy, that even the Parisians, especially women, love.

SAnParis

Carrybean - Amen. I weighed in on one of these earlier (I thinkan entire town was banning smoking) I do smoke a cigar on occasion. People don't seem to mind having the Gov't make all their decisions for them. As long as you allow them to restrict you, they will continue to do so. Where do you draw the line ? Everyone should be required to go back & read "1984" before sharing their opinions, lol.

PalenqueBob

<Where do you draw the line ?> At my nose, in regards to smokers' rights - why should i have to inhale hundreds of toxic chemicals? Would you allow someone to spray toxic chemicals all over you? Think not.

Eric_S

<People don't seem to mind having the Gov't make all their decisions for them.>

This is the funniest non-argument I ever heard. Yes, I want my elected representatives to pass laws that I agree with and yes, I want the government to enforce those laws. This doesn't mean the government is making decisions for me. And just what exactly is the alternative system you have in mind, sir?

PalenqueBob

Tyranny of a seemingly tiny minority vs the wishes of the majority (78%) who are in favor - ever heard of democracy like Eric S's line of thinking?

The thought that anyone has the freedom to pollute, endanger the health of others, etc. for their own selfish addiction is simply obnoxious - WWJD?

PatrickLondon

<Like it or not, all western Europeans have pretty much lost all sense of individual choice and freedom with regard to almost everything>

Which explains, of course, why we are totally unable to choose who we live with (and who we don't), where to travel, where to live....

What we have retained is a sense that individual choice and freedom also bring with them responsibilities to other people.

waring

I am an ardent smoker and am fully in favour of the ban. When on a train, I will never sit in the smoking compartment, but will take a seat in the regular part of the train and go to the smoking section when the craving comes over me.

Nina66

Send in a couple of plane loads of Californians - especially Northern Californians - we'll enforce it to the max.

Years ago a friend who took some very interesting odd jobs while in college, gave out cigarette samples in downtown San Francisco. As he handed them out, he would say 'here - have some free cancer sticks!"

Nina

SAnParis

So what happens when they ban alcohol (you know to keep the drunks off the road, & to stop alcoholism)> All for your own good, right ? Or coffee, we shouldn't have over-stimulated individuals bopping about, & caffeine is addictive, that can't good. Why not just ban caffeine, so no more soda or chocolate or who knows what else. People do things & make choices all the time...If the restaurant is a smoky place, I have the choice to not go there, but they are called 'public places' for a reason. This is a tad different than a workplace where you (arguably) have to be. Why are they doing it by Government edict ? That seems a bit fishy. BTW, I'm pretty sure I can get a 'poll' to say alomost anything I want. You just need to choose your sample properly, it isn't rocket science. If you don't want to be around smokers then steer clear. The point I was trying to make, is that Big Brother will continue to infringe on your choices...as long as you allow it.

SAnParis

PatrickL - I agree, it is unfortunate that common sense, & courtesy, doesn't take care of these types of issues.

Underhill

Big Brother can impinge on second-hand smoke all he wants to.

PatrickLondon

As I understand it,most parts of the US take a much more restrictive attitude to the sale and public consumption of alcohol than most places in Europe outside Norway. Hence some of the questions on here that - at first - sound very strange to my ears at least.

The point about public places is that they need to be available, and not harmful, to the widest possible range of the general public. The issue is not so much the harm done to the person who chooses to consume something harmful on their own, but to other people who didn't ask to consume the byproducts - why should they be forced out of public spaces by the noxious habits of others? It isn't a matter of "Government edict by Big Brother", it's an exercise in democracy.

2Italy

It's also an economic matter for these governments. Many countries are looking down the road at what the health care costs for the government will be. It will be disastrous for some countries. China, with its huge population, is already looking ahead. They're not allowing any new cigarette factories to be built, and they're putting restrictions on the ones that exist. With a population of about 2 BILLION, imagine the government's health care bill if 20-40% of them smoke!!!
If someone tried to introduce cigarettes in today's world, they'd be laughed off the stage. We've made it socially acceptable for a long time, and now we KNOW the health and economic consequences of this practice. It's a health and economic issue, and companies and governments are going to protect themselves.

SDA

I don't quite understand what people mean when they say the banned "worked" in Italy or New York City? I'm under the impression that the state can coerce people to do anything given the right level of enforcement and punishment. So, to say the ban has worked is simply to say the state has flexed its muscles. In liberal democracies it is no compliment at all to say the state is powerful enough and big enough and willing to stop people from engaging in the use of legal products. We in the west used to sneer at governments that did that (e.g. the Soviet Union and its satellite states). We in the west used to pride ourselves on small, limited governments which only intruded minimally in our lives in order that we might maximize our freedom.

Things change. Now we applaud government action that we are too lazy to do anything about. Sure, we could get up and walk out of a bar or cafe that was too smoky but why bother. Let's just ban the whole damn practice altogether.

But smoking is unhealthy you say? The airplane you fly to get to Europe spews out far more pollutants than do cigarettes. Cars too are far more unhealthy -- not just in their exhaust but in the fatalities they cause. Should be talk about chemical companies and other industies? To focus on the ill-health caused by cigarette smokers seems absurd to me when there are products and companies causing far more damage. How about gun manufacturors? You get my point.

I lament the fact that smoking bans work. I regret we even have them. I prefer freedom in all its messy inconveniences.

And, for the sake of full disclosure, I used to smoke but quit years ago. I will always consider myself a smoker -- especially now that they have become such a hated minority.

Eric_S

SAnParis: if a majority of people (again, the people, not the government) wants to ban coffee, so be it. You seem to really have a problem with democracy.
Go make your own poll if you don't believe the existing ones.

SDA: <I don't quite understand what people mean when they say the banned "worked" in Italy or New York City? >

It means that the vast majority of people complied with the ban because they agreed with it. The rest complied out of respect of the law. A few didn't comply and were either fined or gave in to the social pressure.

SAnParis

It's really fairly simple, if the 'people' choose not to purchase services or go into those places that support whatever nasty habit we may be talking about...they go out of business. Be it drugs, alcohol, smoking, strip joints, brothels, whatever. Why do we require Government interference, enforcement, etc. I understand the needs for laws & such, but once people start doing things 'for my own good' as if I can't make my own decisions. Well, then I become a bit suspicious of their motives. I guess next on the list is trans fats. I can't even get a decent french fry now ? I eat a Krispy Kreme ? I can't help it if some 'fast food fanatic' eats himself to death ?!? (& I don't eat fast food BTW).

PalenqueBob

Just in the paper today, NYC thinking of banning trans-fats in cooking in restaurants...

Back to no-smoking bans - OK consumer can choose where to go as long as there are non-smoking alternatives, which in France are few today i believe but what about the workers who have to work in thick smoke for 8 hours a day - should they be forced to do this. Now you could say only workers who smoke would work in smoking cafes - even then if a worker smokes a pack a day on his/her own and then inhales the equivalent of several packs a day they are at serious health risk.

There are two sides to the argument and i can see the validity of both.

vedette

from Eric_s: "if a majority of people (again, the people, not the government) wants to ban coffee, so be it. You seem to really have a problem with democracy."

This is truly scary. One of the founding principles of almost all democracies, including ours, is to protect minorities from being steam-rolled by the majority.