<my biggest hope is thatone day smoking will be banned on the planet>

though such a ban would never work (i.e. Prohibition in U.S.) think of all the money it would save health services and lives that would be saved!

Maybe only if we can show that smoking contributes to global warming would such a ban work - or if you live in Singapore i guess.

Trudaine:
<In Ireland and Italy, there were severe drops in turnover following the total ban.>

I don't know Ireland, but in Italy there was no reduction in the number of patrons (less than 0.5% from what I've read). In Spain, where they left small bars decide whether to allow smoking or not, many that went no-smoking were losing clients and so reverted to smoking. Now I think smoking is allowed in 85% of small bars.

The message is that if the ban is total, people won't stop going to restaurants.

Every Starbucks in Paris i pass by is packed...and it's said that their non-smoking policy is part of the reason. Seems a lot of younger women in them who probably wouldn't go into a traditional cafe in fears of reeking of smoke, etc. Non-smoking will attract new clientele and probably lose fewer than they think perhaps.

I know: many people think smokers are the worst in the world, polluting the environment, cutting short our lives, keeping us from enjoying all those places we'd like to enjoy like cafes and bars (of course coffee isn't so great for you and alcohol will surely kill so what we're supposed to do in cafes and bars is beyond me). Let's just be honest...we just don't like smokers anyway and since they are a minority we can push them around pretty easily. Great!

I think that if tobacco is really as harmful as people claim then let's make it illegal. Why not?

I get the impression some feel that if we only outlawed smoking then no one would die.

I hope the ban in France fails (like the previous restrictions have failed.) I don't smoke and haven't for years but I sympathize with them and don't like to see them persecuted.

<of course coffee isn't so great for you and alcohol will surely kill so what we're supposed to do in cafes and bars is beyond me>

cafes are for sipping coffee and drinking booze if you want - yes these things may harm you but they won't harm folks sitting in that cafe who aren't imbibing in them - no 2nd hand booze or caffeine affect. That's really the point of it all - 245 or whatever carcinogens being forced down a non-smokers throat by contact with smoke.

Do what you want to your body...but your right to smoke ends at my nose!

I'm not a smoker myself....but here in the US, they have banned smoking in many of the larger cities. My question is this....if people quit smoking....guess who gets to foot the bill for the tax revenues that now come from cigarette taxes? The government will have their hand in our pockets...that's who. I say let them smoke. We can always choose not to frequent the establishments that allow smoking.

<....guess who gets to foot the bill for the tax revenues that now come from cigarette taxes>

guess who has to foot the bill from un- or under-insured poor folk who smoke, get ill then require zillions of bucks of health care...at public expense in many cases.

any tax revenues from tobacco will more than be offset by subsequent health care costs born by the public treasury as well.

The beach in Barcelona was rather smoky. Perhaps they can add to the law and make smoking on public beaches a crime.

In my opinion they should make going to the beach a crime. Can you imagine the damage all those sun-tan lotions are doing to the environment?

Again, someone doesn't get it. Making smoking illegal makes as much as sense as making suicide illegal. Eveybody knows that smoking is bad for your health, it's written on the cigarette pack. So if you want to smoke, go ahead, no one is try to stop you. We just don't want to have to breathe your second hand smoke. It's really that simple.

Trans-fats etc. are a whole different story: since you cannot be expected to perform a biochemical analysis of your food/water/air every time you eat/drink/breathe, the law must regualte what can and cannot be put in food/water/air etc. Case in point, cigarette smoke.

Rethinking my attitude towards smokers taxing the medical care system - maybe smokers die so early that it saves governments tons on social security - in that case puff puff away...

Eric, are you kidding with this comment?

"And I suppose you are against monitoring dangerous chemicals in water, polluttants in fuel, etc. You just do it all yourself, right?"

HUGE difference between ones personal choice to smoke and me going out and testing chemicals in water! It's ridiculous.

Smoking laws should be up to the owners of the establishment, case closed.

I noticed a discarded cigarette pack in London with warning in large block
letters: "Smoking Kills."
More snappy prose style than "The Surgeon General has determined..."

This morning they were saying on the news that life expectancy for a casino worker is age 62.

I'm sorry, but the argument about the government paying for smoke related illnesses is just a simply ridiculous.

Why not ban alcohol in the whole country? (liver, kidney, heart diseases)

Why not ban fats in the whole country? (heart attacks)

why not ban "lazy or fat or ?" citizens in the whole country? (heart attacks)

btw, heart attacks, not lung cancer, is the one single biggest killer of people.....

please, tell me what the difference is?

All I was replying to in my first post was the following post:

<i>Apparently public health was less important than preserving the income of these people.</i>,

and I simply replied with:

<i>What about personal responsibility?</i>


I don't mind banning smoking in a public enclosed place because it has been proven that it could be harmful to people around you, but when a government tells me I can't smoke a cigarette anywhere (btw, I'm not a smoker) I start getting worried...what's next?

did you know that, at least in the US, the tobacco farmers get one of the biggest pies out of the official government sponsored farmer subsidies?

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Palenque - your last thought is the accurate one - most recent analyses indicate that premature death due to smoking does indeed at least counterbalance medical care costs, so it is not a slam dunk argument. But there are other costs - economic and social, too. See http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/2/125

MissZiegfeld, you did not understand the parallel. &quot;Case closed&quot; is not a valid argument. What about the workers in the establishment.


AAFrequentflyer, can you clarify your comment about personal responsibility?

I'm glad to see that France is moving (or trying to) in the right direction. The first steps are always hard and there is resistance. But a hundred years ago or so, opium was legal and there was cocaine in coca-cola. Looking back, it wasn't a bad idea to outlaw that. Maybe in another 100 years people will look back on smoking and think, &quot;I'm glad we're past that.&quot; But it has to start somewhere, and I think this law in France is a good start for them.

AFAIK, it's legal to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol just about anywhere in the world, as long as you are not hurting anybody else with your actions (enclosed places/smoking, drunk driving, etc..) and I don't have a problem with that because the government is trying to protect the other citizens from any possible harm,

but since the government makes it legal to drink and smoke, then leave me alone when and if I choose to do it in my <b>space</b>.

<b>personal responsibility</b>

Thank you, AAFF! As I've said before, I quit smoking but I'm so glad all the nonsmokers will die quietly in their sleep &amp; not cost ANYTHING.

<b>when something happens and you are whining for that nasty big government you supposedly didn't want to come and help you pay for that catastrophe such as a devastating hurricane then please don't get upset when we start laughing at you.</b>

I've lived through several hurricanes &amp; one totally wiped me out. I asked for and got NADA from the government.

Caribbean, so you did whine but got nothing.

AA, what's wrong if the government does something to better the health of its citizens. I suppose you are against information campaigns about health risks or checking for poisons in drinking water, but you'd be the first to whine if you get sick from some chemical in your water.