Just as much as I don't like the government telling me what I should/shouldn't do, I also don't like other posters to tell me what I believe or what I will/will not do under certain circumstances....:-D

Thank You, but please read my last post again.....

If it's legal, then leave me alone, as long as I don't hurt anybody else, against their will, with my action(s).

You keep on comparing apples/oranges, so I won't even try to get into that part of the debate.

I appreciate when and if the government <b>tells</b> me that any particular action may hurt me because I realize that no corporation ever will, but if it's legal, then after telling me that it may have a negative effect on my lifestyle, allow me to make that decision.

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding a simple concept.

AA, what I mean is: I think it's good for the government to do information campaigns against smoking and put warnings on cigarette packs etc.
But I do agree with you that raising cigarette prices is bad policy. If people want to smoke, after being warned, then fine with me (provided a strict ban in public places is enforced). In addition, the price policy is unfair to low income people.

But my original post was about the cowardice of the French government: *they* raised prices, *they* used public health as main motivation (which I do not agree with), but then caved in to the pressure of a few thousands cigarette vendors. This happens all the time with all sorts of reforms in France, chances are it will happen again with the proposed smoking ban (cigarette vendors are already up in arms).

Finally, as I said there are other things were government must intervene for public health reasons (e.g. checking chemicals levels in water). Hope you agree with that.

&lt;I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding a simple concept.&gt;

Because your first post wasn't clear. I mistook you for one of the extremists who think the government shouldn't regulate *anything*. I think we agree on the essential.

Reading through these posts, it seems like the biggest problem people have with smoking in public is that second hand smoke is bad for them -- it negatively effects people's health. Other complaints seem to be that &quot;I don't like the smell of smoke&quot; and &quot;I can't enjoy myself around smoke&quot; etc but the crux is the health issue.

If that's true we should agree that second hand smoke is pretty far down the list of things that negatively impact ones health. For example, the airplane you fly to get to Paris is a far greater polluter and spews out far more pollutants than cigarettes do. Yet I don't see the posters on this thread posting on other threads telling people not to fly to Paris.

Similarly, alcohol is far more dangerous to you -- in a second hand way -- then is tobacco. I hope the anti-smoking crowd is out there trying to get alcholo bans in place too.

My point: I will concede to you that someone smoking a cigarette is harmful to me if you concede that it not very harmful and far less harmful than other activity.

I mean: how much time to you people spend in smoky bars and cafes anyway? I know, no time now because of the smokers. But let's say the ban is enforced. How much time would you spend in-doors in a bar or cafe. An hour a day or 7 hours per week for the one week you're in Paris? I doubt that much but let's say for the sake of argument it will be that much. 7 in total for the duration of your one week vacation. Do you seriously, rationally, honestly believe that second hand smoke can do such harm to you with such limited exposure? Really?

There are risks in everything. Crossing the street has a risk, taking a bath does, getting on a plane, going to school, taking medications (erections lasting more than 4 hours.....etc), getting on the metro etc etc. Risk is everywhere. In my opinion we should prioritize our risk and prioritize our outrage. The chemical company polluting the air and water might be at the top of the risk category and therefore might earn your outrage. I think by any objective measure cigarette smoking is so far down the risk category. I have no idea why it earns such scorn and ridicule and smokers such hatred.

My own personal theory (and I have no evidence to back this up) is that most -- not all but most -- people who complain about smoky bars and cafes will spend no more time there after the ban as they do now. They simply do not like the idea of people sitting in bars, smoking, drinking, having fun, perhaps flirting, being sociable. The idea of people having fun is anathema to some. Just my opinion.

I <b>choose</b> to drink and no one else is forcing their alcohol on me. I <b>choose NOT</b> to smoke,and I do not wish to have others force their smoke onto me. I can often limit my exposure by where I go, but not always. It is then that I believe my right to choose NOT to smoke supercedes another's right to put smoke into the air I am breathing.

Eric S, I am not sure I understand how you think 'they' caved in. The price of cigarettes was raised about 80% over a 2 year period -- now more than $6 a pack. When the number of contraband cigarettes went up 400%, they decided that the measure was partially counterproductive and decided to stop raising the price for the moment (until after the elections, of course). Meanwhile, they have lowered to almost nothing the number of cigarettes you can bring in from Spain or Luxembourg. This is what you call 'caving in'?

I fear that Western Europe will soon be California with more interesting architecture.

Good point, SDA.

Why does this ban being successful or not matter to non French residents after all? Do foreign visitors really suffer from second hand smoke? The Louvre, Notre Dame, Versailles, etc, are non-smoking places after all. No foreign visitor is likely to patron smoky small bars in the backwooods.

As to smoke-free meals, Americans will typically show up for dinner at 6:30 in 7th arrondissment restaurants, which are used to catering to an international clientele, well before the local crowd arrives, will be shown to the non-smoking section (restaurants know they won't have any US clientele unless they heve one) and given the English menu.

As to the the French government's &quot;cowardice&quot;, I know it's always nice to recycle the old cliches, and not only on the issue of smoking.

The restaurant industry is a lobby among others, and politically a conservative one. 2007 is election year. Is it that different in the US and the US? Would any US administration take the risk of restricting the ownership of guns, for instance? Isn't British, US policics also defined by lobbies?

kerouac, I'm talking about what happened during the Raffarin tenure. I remember clearly that the government proposed a price hike and then canceled it after the strikes. I don't know what happened since then, as I don't live in France anymore.

SDA1, that's a slightly self-centered perspective. Once again, what about the workers in smoky places? And what about people who actually *live* in dense cities where 40% of the people smoke *everywhere*? At the train station, at the bus stop, in parks, at the beach, at the cafeteria at work, with cigarette butts littering every square meter? In Paris you are constantly whiffing second-hand smoke. The world doesn't revolve around the occasional tourist who goes to Paris for a week. I also love those here who want to keep Europeans in a smoke fog because it's more picturesque.

Eric S, read what I said again.

&quot;Caribbean (sic), so you did whine but got nothing.&quot;

I asked for nothing &amp; I NEVER whine. If you lost everything in a natural disaster could you say the same? I doubt it. You'd be looking for nanny government to bail you out.

Oh, and tell me again about how 2nd hand drinking doesn't hurt anyone. I had a 6 year old cousin killed by a drunk driver.

And that's why drunk driving is forbidden: it harms others.

THANK YOU, SDA1, for the great post.

Eric:
&quot;What about the workers in the establishment.&quot;

Easy. Don't work in that establishment. If a Parisian girl doesn't want to breathe in second hand smoke all day at the cafe she works at, than quit. This should have nothing to do with the government, it should be up to the OWNER of the establishment.

Many studies have found a glass of wine or alcohol is good for the body. BTW, if the United States had good public transportation systems like Europe, I personally believe the drinking age would be 18.

Have you ever rode the subways in Paris. They really are more enjoyable after a glass or two of wine.

MissZiegfeld, wrong again: by your argument we should forego all work safety regulations (helmets, protective glasses, gloves, ...). &quot;Just don't work there&quot;. The XIX century is over.

&quot;Would any US administration take the risk of restricting the ownership of guns, for instance? Isn't British, US policics also defined by lobbies?&quot;

It's a question of courage; No-one in the UK can own a handgun. Not even the Olympic pistol shooting team.

If there was a referendum in the UK on the death penalty it would be brought back tomorrow, however successive governments have had the wisdom to realise that although popular, very wrong. (Especially considering the last half dozen people hanged were either innocent or had mitigating circumstances)

Eric: I'm not sure what was self-centered in my post. Please let me know.

Your argument abour worker saftey is an interesting one. I was dealing mostly with the personal health issues but let's address the worker saftey issue.

You wrote that if we allow workers to work in smoky bars then we might as well get rid of all saftey regulations. Typically it is smokers who are accused of making the &quot;slippery slope&quot; argument but you've managed to one-up us with that post.

Worker saftey laws are in place to try to prevent workers from the most obvious and most harmful risks. So, construction workers wear helmuts, pilots can't fly for longer then 12 hours, etc. Laws do not prevent against all risks. For example, the most dangerous jobs in the US are: taxi driver, 24-7 stores like AMPM. Survey after survey has borne this out. So, I ask, what has the government done lately (or at all) to make these jobs less hazardous? Have they mandated that cameras be installed in all cabs? No. Have they passed laws that 24 hour stores be protected by an armed guard? No.

Have you, someone who cares so much for the worker, written your member of Congress of Member of Parliament and demanded these and other steps be taken?

Have you even written a letter saying the minimum wage should be raised. After all, in the US, waitresses legally get paid LESS than the minimum wage.

My point once again is that there are a whole range of pressing issues facing the worker. To focus on this one, minor, issue and to blow it out of all proportion strikes me as....well, a bit non-sensical. To hate something (cigarette smoke) and some group of people (smokers) well out of proportion to the harm it and they cause is quite ugly -- in my opinion.

SDA1, by self-centered I meant that you only looked at the issue from the perspective of the occasional tourist who goes to Europe once a year.

Concerning other professional risks, I think that working 8 hours a day every day in a smoke filled environment is certain to damage your health. True there are other risks, some of them are unavoidable, some of them should be dealt with (despite there will always be people arguing for the contrary). Smoke exposure is a very certain, documented risk and can be reduced if not eliminated with a simple smoking ban. Just because you cannot eliminate every risk we shouldn't do something against this one.

Well, I applaud your allegiance to the working man and woman. If they had more friends like you and others surely their plight wouldn't be so dire. No doubt they'd have health insurrance and retirement benefits and make better wages. Also, the study I referred to in the previous post about the most dangerous jobs in the US also lists bar workers -- not because of the smoke they are forced to breathe but because of the violence they are subjected to from drunk customers, crooks looking to rob the bar, unscrupulous bar managers, etc. I hope that once smoking has been banned you continue to fight for the rights of bar workers.

Now, some reading these posts might point out that the great majority of bartenders themselves are smokers. But Eric would no doubt righttly argue that it is one thing to chose to kill oneself and quit another matter to be killed by others' second hand smoke.

Risk of what? Murder, mugging, cancer?
See, it's one thing to read a study, quite another to understand it. Your irony is absurd by the way. With this I leave this thread.