France stops smoking

Here is a line that I never thought I would write. Smoking was banned in France today -- and no-one made much fuss.

I am simplifying, but not much. The government published a decree that outlaws smoking in all places open to the public from February next year. An additional 11 months have been given to bars, tobacconists, restaurants and nightclubs. From 2008, their customers will be allowed to smoke in small fumoir rooms which staff are not required to enter.

In other words, France, home of the Gauloise, smoky cafes and the cigarette as as tool of seduction, has joined Ireland, Italy, Scotland and those other European states that have banished tobacco. A decade or two ago, no sane French government would have dreamed of outlawing la cigarette, let alone six months ahead of presidential elections.

But France has undergone the same awakening to the health damage as everyone else and smoking is no longer cool -- except among teenagers. The only real opposition to the new laws has come from tobacconists. In standard French manner, they are to receive hand-outs from the state treasury to tide them over. 

Yet it seems clear that kicking la clope (fag in the UK) out of French life will be tougher than issuing a decree. About a quarter of adults still smoke. Though banned from offices, transport and public buildings for years, smoking remains tolerated to a degree that shocks Americans and visitors from other more health-conscious climes.

Ashtrays grace the tables of the better sections of restaurants while the no-smoking area is still relegated to the back. In the crowded brasseries of the Boulevard des Italiens by the Times office, people at the next table happily blow smoke across my plat du jour. Half my fellow musicians in my Monday night jazz band -- including horn players -- light up during the break.  Clumps of office workers gather around the doorways of their buildings in all weathers for a drag during la pause cigarette. Teenagers hang around the gates of their lycées (high schools) striking poses with their cigarettes.
   
The air still contains dangerous quantities of smoke in 42 percent of French public spaces, according to a study by the International Centre for Cancer Research at Lyon and the Roswell Park Cancer Institute.

The change is that people feel guilty about continuing to smoke. The media and state have been campaigning hard. TF1 television, whose 8pm news shapes the people's agenda,  has been running shock items on respiratory disease. A report last month showed that 66,000 people died from smoking-related illnesses each year, with up to a further 5,800 dying from passive smoking.

But even if there is no doubt that France is right to kick the habit, it is difficult to resist nostalgia. Since the 16th century, when Jean Nicot, a French diplomat, imported tobacco and gave his name to its ingredient, smoking has been a very French pastime. Without the cigarette -- a French word -- the country seems less Gallic. In my student days, France was the pungent smell of les brunes, the cigarettes made by the state monopoly from native dark tobacco. In the countryside, they smoked the really strong version, wrapped in yellow maize paper, that sold under the Boyard brand. In Paris, it seemed that everyone smoked. Art Buchwald, the veteran US humorist who was a Paris correspondent in the 1950s, remembered the other day that you had to light up before you spoke in cafes. "Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Pablo Picasso ...got all their ideas as they exhaled smoke from their mouths," he said.  Before the 1980s, Jacques Chirac, now a non-smoking President, posed for his campaign pictures with une américaine dangling from his lips.

One wonders what Sartre and Albert Camus, another famous smoker, would have made of Chirac's latest health ploy. Yesterday he created a National Commission for Addictions. This will handle French addiction not just to tobacco, but to alcohol, gambling, sex and many other sources of dependency.  "After the age of 65, one death out of three is due to an addiction," said Xavier Bertrand, the Health Minister. So the next logical step might be a French ban on wine, casinos and hanky panky ? Not in my lifetime, but then again.... 

Comments

[Sarah Hague]

If you're a teenager and you don't smoke, you're in a very small minority. There is even a smoking room in our local lycee for those who can't cope from one end of the day to another without a fag. It's absolutely shocking and they should be ashamed of themselves. But, as with so much of French life, the appearance of it is so 'cool'. So stuff their lungs.

[arn lund]

Yeah, that's fine: One step more into clean life for mankind! But, sorry, it remembers me to H.G.Wells "Time machine", where people on earth all are clean, sober and healthy - and reality works underneath in intelligent monsters. Longer living is not better living. Smokers aren't underdogs, they just have lust for life, not for eternity (that's why teens tend to smoke: they want to feel themselves). Through health issues the puritanian part of society implants a modern form of dictatorship. But the cleaning all over kills the difference. That may be a problem of creativity sometimes.

[Marine gar]

I'm french, and I read sometimes "The Times". I think in France tobacco is an important problem and I tihnk this decree is really important especially for passive smokers. In hight school especially because teenagers want only to be "cool" and sometimes they do it only to be accept of their band... So, tobacco destroy life of person who aren't always conscient of risks to smoke.

[Marine gar]

I'm French, and I read sometimes "The Times". I think in France tobacco is a very important problem especially for passive smokers. Teenagers are first victims of this problem, because sometimes they do it only to be "cool", or to be accept in a band: so, in lycées it's a big problem. Ihope that this decree'll stay of actuallity.

[Fred LaForge]

Does the National Commission for Addictions deal with the addiction to moral superiority? Such a powerful drug...

[Robert Marchenoir]

I was surprised to read that this National Commission for Addictions will also deal with sex.

Nowhere did I read any facts or figures supporting the underlying assumption that a significant portion of the French population suffers from unreasonable addiction to sex.

Nor any studies conclusive of the nefariousness of such an addiction.

Nor any proposed, practical means to reverse such an unhealthy habit.

Was that a prank by some mischievous, anonymous civil servant, adding the word "sex" to an already long list of frowned-upon vices?

Or, more probably, was it just a bit of bragging, a trick to spruce up the national morale, to instill some feelgood element into an otherwise depressing announcement?

[Ricky]

And even though we didn't need it, here is ONE MORE reason not to visit France!

[Frank Schnittger]

Just in case people wondered, the smoking ban in Ireland came into effect a couple of years ago and is one of the most popular decisions ever taken by any Government. Opinion polls have shown huge majorities in favour and even smokers approve of it by a smaller margin.

People still smoke outdoors and most pubs have some kind of a "beer garden" or similar outdoor facility to facilitate smokers. Given that the climate is so much better in France this should be less of a hardship for French smokers.

It is so refreshing to go into pubs and restaurants without smoke in them - that I was quite shocked when, on a recent visit to Spain, I again encountered smoking in a restaurant. You just get used to the smoke free atmosphere so quickly you forget what it used to be like.

If arn lund is correct that teens tend to smoke because they want to feel themselves, then that is a sad commentary on teenagers. Can they not be themselves without smoking? Why celebrate drug dependency? I appreciate it may be as much an image/style dependency, but are we saying that teenagers lack the poise and self confidence to "be themselves" without a prop?

Smoking may now take on a bit more of a "rebel" image but surely most teenagers were just mimicking their parents and saw it as a way of being seen as an adult. When the adults stop doing it the majority of teens will follow.

There has been a steady drop in cigarette sales since the ban in Ireland – together with a slighter smaller drop in drink sales in pubs – offset by a rise in home drinking which was occurring in any case because of stricter controls on drinking and driving.

To some it all smacks a bit of the “nanny” state, but there is no doubt that the benefits are already being felt in Irish society.

[Virginie]

I don't beleive that the French government came up on theiI own in imposing such measure.
It has to do with global...life... to accomodate other countries, which I prefer not to name.

Great article though!

[Chris Chanslor]

Yet another example of smoker's rights being stripped away and all anyone can think of is health. What about individual liberty? This not a matter of health it is a matter of ownership. Who owns one's lungs? The smoker or the government? Who owns the sidewalk cafe where smoking will be banned? Let the decision to smoke or not to smoke be made by individuals and not by administrative fiat. For anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to deprive the roughly 25% of citizens in France, Britain, as well as the US of their rights, keep in mind that they will be after your habit next.

[Axel beck]

Thanks Arn Lund for your clear message. Smoking ban is the first step, then alcohol, chocolate and staying up late. You will be allowed to have a walk only if there are no pollutants. You raise your children to be perfect in an artificial world. What is the risk of working in a smokey bar compared with working in small narrow bar kitchen as an illegal,breathing all the burned fat and serving the meal into a non smoking bar. For me the world is getting unreal and double moral is ruling.

[Isabelle]

I am sorry, Axel beck, Chris Chanslor and arn lund.
Smoking cannot be compared to eating too much chokolate. If I ate too much chocolate I do harm only to myself. If I smoked and particularly in a café I harm others who never took the decision by themselves to accept the health risks from smoking. It is called passice smoking.
You ask:
"What about individual liberty? This not a matter of health it is a matter of ownership. Who owns one's lungs?"

Smokers certainly don't own the lungs of non smokers and where is the right of a non smoker for his health?

It is proven that passive smoking impacts health in a negative way. I think this outweighs by far the lust for a smoke.

BTW: illnesses from smoking exist and it is paid for by all people paying for CPAM even if they don't smoke ...

Please think a bit more beyond the horizon behind the smoke curtain ... and leave behind the simple egoistic desire to smoke without regards to others.

[Axel beck]

Isabelle,
thanks for your comments, but you have not understood, how life works. You are absolutly right that working in a smoking environvironment has some risks. But what about a person who is cleaning windows at the 23rd floor, no risk?
I don't think you live 100 years yourself. And even if so, there is no satisfaction for the last ten Years. Live now and not for the last 10 years.

[Kay]

I stopped smoking 8 weeks ago after 44 years. During a visit to my doctor for treatment for a cough she suggested I may have COPD. This brought up images of the oxygen tank and tubes up my nose and I stopped smoking within two days and it is no problem to me. Previously I had used all the resistance arguments in order to continue smoking. Each person is triggered in different ways to give up their addiction just as they are to start and continue it.

[christopher muir]

The new restrictions will be a blow to the producers of French cinema. Most of their scenes appear to be smoke-filled, especially in bedrooms and bars. I'm afraid that it just won't be the same anymore without those long pauses and lingering looks when actors inhale and exhale intensely between their spoken lines. Directors will have to search for substitute relaxants, but I wonder what they will be? Glasses of water or perhaps chewing gum come to mind. They might even have to include jogging and gym scenes to support future health campaigns. Not very sexy, I'm afraid. And not very French.

[Marguerite.]

A Tokyo (le Japon est un pays ou les gens fument enormement) , il y a des trottoirs "non-fumeur". Il y a ,par terre un signe indiquant qu'il est interdit de fumer a cet endroit.

[Isabelle]

Axel, either you missed the point or you don't want to see my argument.
My point is that smokers by their behaviour and by their own decision IMPOSE on others those risks.
Your example doesn't fit exactly to what I wanted to say. If the window cleaner goes up there he will take care to secure himself if he is reasonable. If he is not or for any other reason he doesn't take the necessary precaution, fine, it is his own risk. I don't care. If he falls and get hurt he only has to blame himself. But my point is that to smoke is like as if the risk loving guy imposed upon his collegue to take the same risk. (no one is going to forbid smoking at one's own home).
Fine, if you want to smoke and risk your health, your decision, your choice. But if I don't choose to take that risk (whatever you may think about it, your buisness) anybody would respect it, at least if he is capable of looking a bit beyond his own desires. Freedom of choice.
As much as I can't predict my future as much can't you. If you think you want to live your life the way you do all right. Don't impose your way of living upon others.
Rare those smokers who actually ask their surroundigs if they would be bothered by his cigarette's smoke ...
Btw. I never understood why people smoke. (I guess I don't have to, which is all right with me) I think it smells awfully and smokers smell like smoke, so I don't think I miss anything. --- anyhow, I prefer a decent perfume ... and I appreciate a good meal without tabac smell.

[Rosamund Jaffeux]

All the same - I am 78 & have lived in France for nearly 50 years - I well remember in 1940 going to the morning "Micky Mouse" cinema séances at the Odeon, Kensington - all the children were snuggling up to their fathers puffing either pipe smoke at them, maybe Players or Craven A. After that I was "smoked out" by my (french) husband and elder son - I am still alive and if not also "kicking" it's nothing to do with tobacco.

[Joshua Taylor]

After living in France for sometime I have just returned to Australia. A country that enforces extreme anti-smoking laws. I understand that smoking affects others, but the laws here are ridiculous. There are outdoor areas that are smoke free. Smoking in bars is a joke; you can’t smoke beyond a yellow line on the floor but can smoke behind it. A distance of perhaps 20cm, hmmm this is really effective. The most absurd of all is that intravenous drug users are given sharps containers to dispense of their syringes in the toilets. So there is a sharps container but not an ashtray. What kind of message does this send to people? So you can shoot up heroin in the toilet but you can’t smoke a cigarette? This is a perfect example of the nanny state spun out of control. This is an even better example that its puritans more worried about trying to dictate morals and tell everybody else how to live, than make the world a better place. France and French friends always struck me as people who knew how to enjoy things in moderation, food, and alcohol are good examples. I hope they stay level headed and don’t let governments and fanatics get carried away with absurd laws that have no consistency. Why not have a smoking Café and a non-smoking Café.. Then let everyone have a choice and decide what’s best for them.

[Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.]

Isabelle, your point re: chocolate is slightly offbase. The argument (already being made in some quarters) is that such behaviour, e.g. eating too much chocolate, fast food, red meat, etc. leads to increased health care costs and an an additional burden on public health agencies and, therefore, should be banned. Rest assured, tobacco is only the first target of the new puritans!

[paving]

In California I get to witness first-hand the truly obnoxious attitudes and hypocrisy regarding smoking. Far worse than the smug superiority (which one must acclimate to or wither) is the righteous declaration that smoking is causing harm to others, as if the smoke from a cigarette is some kind of toxic plume capable of vast human destruction, like an airborne 9-11.

The second-hand smoking crowd must get over itself. The science of it is not mysterious, unless one is spending considerable time in smoke-filled rooms for decades you are extremely unlikely to suffer any adverse health consequences. It may even relax you through no effort of your own. Merely whiffing the fumes of a cigarette whilst strolling with your "child" on a city street will not cause lifelong ailments (lawsuit!) or greater harm. It will merely cause inconvenience and annoyance to those unfit for this world.

To hear people complain about the odor of cigarette smoke is often greatly entertaining, if your viewpoint is sufficiently dark. This person is usually a woman wearing hundreds of dollars of designer clothes sewn by small children, drinking exploitation-dependent Starbucks coffee hopping into her BMW (20mpg!) on her way home, 100km from the city centre along government subsized (read: free) roads to an unsustainable housing development designed to shelter residents from the diversity of life on Earth.

One thing learned by this longest-running smoke-out is that it is never enough for the anti-smoking crowd and that the slope is indeed rather steep and muddy. Public squares and parks are often non-smoking now. These are large, open-air spaces funded by all residents of a district, often disproportionately by smokers who pay extra 'sin' taxes. Now there are communities that seem to believe they can ban smoking everywhere in the city, including apartments because the smoke can pass through the walls.

If only I were making this up...

In my view what is needed are more studies to back up assertions that screaming babies cause deafness, overprotective mothers cause aneurysms and crime is primarily motivated by a lack of faith in the reasoning skills of the surrounding population.

On a more reasonable note it has always struck me as silly that licenses for tobacco are not handed out in establishments in a controlled fashion, much as "liquor licenses" are. Surely there can be a set of regulated, limited establishments in any given area that are allowed to offer smoking uninhibited to their guests? Or perhaps not, as one of these establishments would surely gain a reputation rather quickly for being more fun than everywhere else (likely due to the less uptight clientele, you know, the ones who aren't afraid of life) and the anti-smokers would feel left out.

[Shaheen]

Ok,
I am seventeen now, I have alredy been smoking for five years (started at 13, and yes i did start when i was 13 because i tought it was cool). Smoking is bad for health agreed, Us smokers know how bad it is and dont need to be reminded through the discrimination we are facing whenever we go to a park, office, restaurant etc.

We smoke because we want to smoke, wether it is cool, or because we get high, for suicidal purposes, its our problem, we are smoking not you and if other people dont like smoking its quite simple YOU DEAL WITH IT, if you dont like a smoker dont go and hang with him because he smokes.

you wont go and discriminate a cripple because he looks ugly, you wont go and point out and mock a homosexual in public although you may hate them. Thus putting a band on smoking is violation of human freedom and is equivelant to the two examples I have made above because its morally or physically WRONG by those who dont smoke, but it is up to us as human beings to decide what is rite or rong and no one, again NO ONE has the rite to violate that decision and ban us from doing what we like to do so long as it isnt a crime (like murder, rape, stealing etc.) that is to an extent direct violation of others.

We have been smoking for centuries and why is it now that we decide to ban it, because we found out its bad for health, every idiot knows how bad a cigerette is but they still smoke. thats what makes us human being able to decide.

With people like YOU SMOKING BANNERS running the world today in fifty years democracy (as it is alredy slowly changing) will turn into Communism or something even worse.

Football will be band cause you can get injured in it, your children will go to school to be force fed garbage in order to controll and manipulate them according to how society feels fit so that we will all end up running like computer programs with no freedom, no liberty and no real sence of justice.

[Narelle Lewis]

I'm an Aussie living in France.

I used to love going out to restaurants. I used to love spending the afternoon in a cafe. I used to love spending Friday nights at the pub.

I say used to, because I haven't done any of these things since I moved to France.

In Australia, restaurants are non-smoking and have been for more than 10 years. I went out at least once a week.

When I lived in Scotland, there was a cosy little non-smoking bar in Edinburgh and I went there every Friday night.

I also spent a lot of time in non-smoking cafes.

Since moving to France almost two years ago, I've been robbed of the right to these things which I enjoyed so much, because of the smoke.

Why?

Because one person smoking in the same room as me makes my eyes water, my nose block up, my throat and chest hurt.

I also find it hard to breathe. It makes me cough and I get a headache.

To rub salt into the wound, I am laughed out of anywhere that I go when I ask if the establishment is non-smoking. One restaurant even went so far as to say that there's no law against smoking.

What? Yes there is! Evin law! Why is it not enforced?

If you are a smoker and have said in this comment section that non-smokers don't have a life -- you have your answer as to why we don't.

I've made a large number of friends here in Toulouse, all of whom are non-smokers (I didn't filter them, honestly!).

As we all suffer greatly from cigarette smoke (or far worse, cigars -- who'd have thought people under 70 smoked those??), our only option is to go to each others' homes for parties and dinners as it's the only way at present that we can enjoy a stress-free evening.

There has been talk about a nanny state. It's true that the French are babied (I've taught at universities here, I've seen first-hand how these poor students are treated like they're still in primary school). But what I'd like to know is, how can anyone possibly thing France is becoming a nanny state with regard to smoking -- an issue that causes such divide among as, as is evident in the discussion we're having -- when smoking is still allowed?

Smokers can smoke at home and still enjoy going to a restaurant. Non-smokers, such as myself, can only stay at home.

What kind of a democracy is this?

[Ariane Pearson]

To Chris Chanslor,
yes but other peoples habits don’t necessarily kill them!