France bends its imminent smoking ban

French smokers are counting down the days. On January 1, the national ban on indoor smoking will be extended to bars, cafés, restaurants, night clubs and the other "places of conviviality". These were given a one-year reprieve last February while smokers got used to the new prohibition on work places and other indoor space.

Can it really be possible that no-one in France will be able to griller une cigarette as they down their apéro at the bar or savour their express after a brasserie meal?. In theory, yes. Smoking will only be allowed in specially ventilated, closed chambers which no staff may enter while in use. Since no service will be available, very few of these have been installed.

But wait. Die-hard smokers -- and there are about 10 million of them -- have now been given hope by Roselyne Bachelot, the Health Minister. Under pressure from the tobacco lobby and catering industry, she has revised the rules for café and restaurant terraces. Under the previous definition, smoking would be tolerated on out-door terraces only if these were not covered overhead and were open on the front. Under Bachelot's new definition, smoking will be allowed on terraces under awnings and open only on one side. 

This obviously defeats the intent of the law since most people sitting on the terrace will get a dose of smoke and the anti-cigarette lobby are annoyed. It has also had another undesirable consequence: a boom in out-door gas heaters.

Brasserie and cafe owners are snapping up "propane parasols" that radiate onto tables so they can keep their terraces open in winter for smokers. The heaters are costly to run and are of course about as environmentally incorrect as you can get.

The softening of the ban partially fulfills yet another Sarkozy promise. To win friends in the tobacconists' and café trade, Sarko promised in the election campaign last spring that if elected, smoking restrictions would be applied "in consultation" with the trade. But the tobacconists say the terrace surrender is just a sop and they are still not happy. Several thousand marched through the Left Bank last month to demand much bigger exceptions to the ban, such as tolerance of smoking in rural bar-cafés and separate rooms for fumeurs where food and drink could be served.

The Government has refused that, arguing that experience in Italy, Ireland and other prohibition countries shows that the hospitality trade will not suffer.  Out of 800 French cafes and restaurants which have already imposed full bans, only seven percent have reported a drop in business. Polls in France also show that over three quarters of smokers approve of the total ban. So it seems a pity that the habit should still be inflicted on customers who want to sit on terraces. 

I have never been a cigarette smoker but I used to enjoy the scent of Gauloises and Gitanes, those pungent tabac brun fumes that said you were in France. I also admit to having enjoyed cigars. I use the past tense because it feels anti-social now to light up in company and the pleasure is spoilt by the knowledge of the health damage.

French cigar enthusiasts are banding together to push their lost cause. A group called "Les Amis des plaisirs du goût" has been busy denouncing "the prohibitionist tendency which is spreading in France".
David Droulez, their president, held a press conference the other day to call for "mobilisation in defence of the freedom of expression against the threat of the anti-tobacco campaign." Attitudes to smoking have changed so much -- even in France -- that Mr Droulez's argument just sounds ridiculous.

Sarko, by the way, loves smoking huge cuban cigars -- in private.   

Comments

[John Styx]

Though I cannot say I know him well, I've smoked cigars with Mr Droulez. I suppose he talks about cigar clubs and cigar magazines which have been summoned before courts by some non-smokers association.

[John]

I doubt the law will be thoroughly respected in 2008. It will take many months, and perhaps many years before everybody respect the law. If they don't have special police units to patrol the bars, cafés and restaurants, few people will respect the law. I can't imagine people changing their habits so drastically so quick. A good place to check if the law is respected is the Japanese student restaurant on rue Monsieur Le Prince (6th arrondissement). Try also all the cafés and bars around Rambuteau station. These places, I can't imagine they are suddenly going to become smoke-free on January 1 at 00:00 ECT. Clients will never accept it. It will take ages to educate them.

[Frank Schnittger]

Since the effects of smoking are a huge drain on the French health budget, perhaps those who wish to continue to smoke will agree sign away their right to public health services?

[Dominique]

One issue will be "cultural" once again. We'll face difficulties with hundreds of "Shisha Bars" that opened in the country. All the young going there will claim that France does not respect their "cultural habit". Riots to come...

[Paul]

It may take a while, but the French will get used to it. There have been other countries such as Ireland, where it was thought that smoking bans might not work well. They did there and they'll work in France too.

[Terry]

I've never smoked in my life. But the anti-smoking nazi's are getting a little out of hand. In New Jersey, they are getting ready to pass a law making it illegal to smoke in a car if children are present. Some have talked about outlawing smoking in the home if children are present now. It may start with the cafes but then they're gonna come for the chateaus. Will the French tolerate the anti smoking nonsense being taken too far?

[John]

@ Paul:
Ireland doesn't have the uncivic tradition of France though. In France people don't think it's bad to disrespect the law, sometimes they are even proud of it. It's part of the Revolutionary heritage. A cousin of mine once boasted he had a trick to avoid paying toll on the freeway between Toulouse and Montpellier, and he proudly explained to us how the trick worked. Another cousin of mine once boasted that he cheated the tax office for 5 years by avoiding paying the income tax. Attitudes like that would be unthinkable in Ireland, the US or the UK, but in France it's not uncommon.

[Sam Young]

As the Irish experience showed, it is very easy to implement this ban; simply remove the license of any premises not complying. For it to work though, it has to be policed at the beginning.

[Simmy]

Dear Frank Schnittger, I really wish people would stop mentioning the drain on health services of smoke related illnesses, without knowing the facts. Although, I don't actually know the French facts, the British NHS (3rd largest employer in the world, so I'm sure this applies to France even taking into account slightly lower duties) costs a lot less than 50% of the revenues taken from the sale of Tobacco related products. Thus, by your argument smokers should actually get better treatment than everybody else! ps I'm all for the ban!!

[The 3rd Column]

Charles,

Incidentally, I saw someone with a strong likeness to you in a France 2 TV advert promoting a future Channel 4 speaking in French with an English accent -- was that you?
[No, don't think so, 3rdColumn, CB]

[Paula]

In 'egalitarian' Australia strict smoking bans in restaurants and pubs have worked surprisingly well.

It's the little groups of workers that hover at the back doors of their offices and workplaces at all hours of the day stealing 'smoko' breaks that indicate that the non-smoking lobby still has a way to go.

[Barrie Garfinkel]

As long as they can't smoke inside the bar - they can do anything they want on the terrace -
I'll finally be able to go in the bar during the winter months, I'm tired of my clothing stinking for days after all the smoking.

[dead paul]

"Polls in France also show that over three quarters of smokers approve of the total ban"

And pigs fly!

[John Styx]

@John: I suspect the French rebellious attitude towards law and tax is a Latin trait. What you describe can be observed in Italy as well (I don't know about Spain). Yet total ban in restaurants was implemented in Italy some time ago. Much to my amazement, it works. I'm confident the same will apply in France.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Ireland doesn't have the uncivic tradition of France though. In France people don't think it's bad to disrespect the law, sometimes they are even proud of it. " - John

Thanks for the compliments, John, but they are ill-deserved. For a long time there was a culture in Ireland that it was almost a patriotic duty for every Irishman to circumvent the law wherever possible. It derived, I think, or perhaps was just excused by the fact that for centuries Ireland was ruled by the British and thus the Irish felt under no obligation to cooperate with the occupying power.

That culture has only changed in recent times, and the smoking ban is a very good example of the change. Before it was introduced almost everyone said it wouldn't work, that it would be ignored or flouted wholesale. That hasn't happened and it has become even MORE popular since it was introduced.
People now just wouldn't want to go back to an era of smokey pubs, restaurants, and cinemas. And remember, the climate in Ireland is even less conducive to outdoor smoking.

Simmy – I take your point, but just because I pay more income tax doesn’t entitle me to a better public heath services than others. The same applies to people who pay more excise duties on alcohol or tobacco.

The main reason for the smoking ban is the effect that smoking has on others – i.e. passive smoking and the increased health risks and costs associated with it. Public health service budgets are under pressure in may countries (France as well?) and thus if you were to prioritise treatments for smoking related diseases, would you give it to people who are still smoking (and actively damaging their health) or to people who are suffering from the effects of past or passive smoking who are at least trying to avoid further damaging their health?

As Terry might say, people have to take some responsibility for their own health and you can hardly expect the state to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of your treatment if you are not making any effort to live a healthier lifestyle yourself.

Or is the right to damage your and other people’s health and have the state pay the costs for treating the consequences an acquired right in France?

[Marguerite.]

Salut Charles Bremner. J'apprends des tas de choses sur ma ville en lisant votre blog.
Notamment qu'il n'y aura plus de place pour les non-fumeurs a la terrasse des cafes. Elles vont etre envahies par les fumeurs...C'est horriblement triste.C'est tellement bien ,a Paris, au printemps, de s'asseoir a une terrasse de cafe et d'y lire son journal !

[Choko.]

Au Japon, qui est un grand pays de fumeurs, il y a des petites cabines ventilees, comme celles qu'il devrait y avoir en France.
Il y en a meme dans la nature dans les lieux ou il y a du monde, expositions en plein air, etc. .
Il y a tellement de fumee a l'interieur des cabines, qu'a travers les parois ont ne voit meme plus ceux qui sont a l'interieur.
Il y a aussi ecrit: "no smoking",en anglais et en japonais sur certains trottoirs

[Valentin]

"tired of my clothing stinking for days after all the smoking"

Myeah, depends on the bar - I mean, on the quality of the cigarettes :) They should have rather imposed better filters.

How about banning cars altogether. The big city pollution and the related explosion of asthma cases are just as bad.
Why not just tax cigarettes according to the cost smoking brings on health insurances.

What's next, forbidding drinks too? What else will we be allowed to do in a bar, read books?
Will they ban all cutting and contondent objects as well? Why not just move in a sterilized bubble altogether.

[Sid Jacques]

The French!.
Progamatic to the end.

Good for them.

[John]

@John Styx: if in 2 months time I walk by the bobo cafés around Rambuteau, or the cafés in the 11th arrondissement which are a haunt for far-left young people wearing scarfs and worshiping Che Guevara, and I see no one smoking inside, I think I'll start to believe in miracles again. But so far I still don't believe in miracles.

[azloon]

I think for some self-obsessed skeptics, jeremiads about smoking in public spaces and catestrophic predictions about global warming fall into the same category -- unproven, zealous hysteria.

fortunately, the number of these folks are on the wane and science seems to be prevailing, i.e. second-hand smoke is proven bad for you.

the idea that new jersey (u.s.) would ban smoking in autos if children are passengers is not farfetched in my mind. mandatory seat belts and car seats for kids, and cell phone bans in cars, are already law.

my former mother-in-law, long before the 'ban smoking' movement took hold, used a small battery-powered fan to blow smoke back towards 'offenders' in restaurants and other places where smoke drifted her way. most of these people either crushed their smokes, or got up and left.

at the other extreme, a well-healed mexican woman i knew, who occasionally came to arizona to shop, was enraged by the smoking ban in taxis to her favorite shopping spots. she would launch into anti-american tirades (second only to soccer/football as world's favorite sport), and offer $100 bribes to taxi drivers to ignore the ban (she would always find one). she is today a recovering alcoholic/smoker who is as agreeable as a lamb about almost everything.

global warming is harder to prove.... so we'll probably all perish in great flooding of the continents. that's the bad news. the good news: we'll be a lot healthier right up to the moment of our extinction than if we'd continued smoking, or allowed it to be done in our presence.

for myself, i will continue to occasionally smoke a cuban cigar, by myself, out on my patio, when weather permits, knowing that perhaps one person in a hunded would tolerate my smoking it in their presence.

i had a girl friend once who loved the smell of my cigars. that, by itself, was enough to make me think i wanted to marry her.

[Edward]

Here we go again. The Politburo of the anti-smoking kommisars is on the offensive. Why can't we have places for smokers and also for non-smokers? Of course you want it all smoke free. Here's an idea on how to solve the problem: All of you lovers of the pure air and the outdoors can do just that: Stay outdoors. That way you can enjoy other things (like the stuff coming out of exhaust pipes) and experience the joys of nature in full. Next you'll demand the ban of cars, airplanes, motorcycles and railroad engines. Hope you are ready for that.

[Terry]

"As Terry might say, people have to take some responsibility for their own health and you can hardly expect the state to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of your treatment if you are not making any effort to live a healthier lifestyle yourself."

Frank is half right! I would say that people certainly have to take responsibility for their own health. However, when "society" has decided that everyone should pay for everyone else's healthcare-that's what you get. Now you have to pay for everyone else's infirmities.

Oh, but you dont like the idea of paying for other people's bad behavior. So, you want to penalize it by denying people health care benefits? What other behaviors did you have in mind? Do people who eat high fat diets shouldn't get healthcare? Rationing fast food? Too much soda, no benefits?

Let's take your idea one step further. What if people decide it's a waste of resources to rescusitate anyone over 85 over years old? Should we deny them health care to?

To bring this back to France, New Jersey adopted the same cigarette laws last year. It started out with all the nonsense about smoking in bars etc. It has led to people talking about penalizing people for their food choices and host of other non smoking related choices. Once the smoking wars are over, the same do gooders who brought you that Tomfoolery will start on their next project-food.

This is what happens when you let government stick its nose into the personal choices people make. I love you Frank, but every opinion you express always seems to be more government power over the individual.

The government can take away my mashed potatoes when they pry my fork from my cold dead hands.

[azloon]

[The government can take away my mashed potatoes when they pry my fork from my cold dead hands.] Terry

lol :)

note to others: you need to have seen 'columbine' or know charton heston's work as president of the u.s. national rifle association (NRA) to 'get' this one.

but, Terry, there IS a difference between someone sitting next to you in a restaurant eating cholesterol-laden, transfatty foods, and someone smoking a huge cigar and blowing the smoke into your face and food, n'est-ce pas?

one potato, two potato, three potato, four ........

go for it.

[Frank Schnittger]

"I love you Frank, but every opinion you express always seems to be more government power over the individual." - Terry

Oh sh*t, Terry, let’s not go over board here!

I don't have a problem with people smoking in private if that's what they want to do. It's when they smoke in a confined public space that they damage the health of others through passive smoking. If the taxpayers, through the state, end up picking up the tab for all these additional smoking related diseases, it seems reasonable that they should want to promote behaviour which reduces the risk of such diseases - i.e. smoking in an outdoor or well ventilated space.

My late wife gave up smoking around the time we got married. After that she could tell if I had even been in a room where other people had smoked - such was her sensitivity to the smoke molecules embedded in my clothes. It made her physically sick to go into a very smoky environment. Her work as a social worker often gave her very little choice but to be in such an environment, as most of her clients smoked, especially when they were nervous or upset.

Now all hospitals and workplaces are smoke free in Ireland, and smokers no longer expect to be able to smoke even if they are in a stressful situation. It came too late to save her life (she died of cancer) and of course you can never prove anything but a statistical link between passive smoking and a higher incidence of some cancers.

But as far as I am concerned, if even a few lives are saved by reducing the general level of exposure to passive smoking, then it is worth it. I don't see this as increasing the "government's power over the individual". Rather as vindicating a worker's right to a safer environment.

Those who are the most vociferous about protecting their own individual freedoms are often the least aware of the effect of their actions on others. Government is about striking a balance between individual rights and responsibilities. Different societies/governments will choose to strike the balance in different places.

The overwhelming trend in Europe is toward the right of non-smokers to a smoke free environment. What opinion poll and electoral data there is supports the view that the overwhelming majority of people (at least in Ireland) support this trend. That is what democracy is all about.

[dada]

Mr Bremner, you must be familiar with the name of Dasquié; as a journalist maybe you have some things to develop.

[Terry]

Frank:

"I don't have a problem with people smoking in private if that's what they want to do."

Except that's not what your comment said. You said government health care shouldnt PAY for smoke related maladies. That's the point I was addressing. Do you also hold the same for fatty foods?

BTW: Thanks Azloon for getting it. The "mashed potatoes" comment is corrupted from a pro gun ownership bumper sticker "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands".

[Terry]

Azloon:

"Terry, there IS a difference between someone sitting next to you in a restaurant eating cholesterol-laden, transfatty foods, and someone smoking a huge cigar and blowing the smoke into your face and food, n'est-ce pas?"

I think you missed my narrower point, Azloon, which was Frank's comments about health care costs.

Here's the thing, Azloon. It should be up to restaurants to decide whether they want to allow smoking. If you dont like smoke blowing in your face, don't go into that restaurant. No one is forcing anyone to eat in a particular restaurant or go to a bar. Nor do you have A RIGHT to eat there. It is a VOLUNTARY choice. Some restaurants may flourish by VOLUNTARILY providing smoke free enviroments. Others may choose to have smoking areas. If a majority of a bar's patrons choose to smoke, then that should be their individual choice. [that is what democracy is really all about Frank-grownups making their own choices not social engineers telling people what's good for them].

Of course, those for the nanny states are always busybodies who want to tell everyone what to do. Using law and force rather than persuasion to achieve what they want. And it wont end with banning smoking in restaurants in France either.

This is NOT what democracy is about.

[Seb]

The smoking ban is well appreciated here in Wales. Even by the smokers... Gathering outside under the heavy showers he had this week-end is a good way to socialize.

[stern88]

Please add a print button that will allow printer friendly format that includes the pictures.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Since the effects of smoking are a huge drain on the French health budget, perhaps those who wish to continue to smoke will agree sign away their right to public health services?"

It was a rhetorical question, Terry, designed to raise the issue that rights come with responsibilities. Health care, at the point of delivery, should be non-judgemental - thus drug addicts or injuries caused by self-harm also get treated.

However a surgeon assessing and prioritising cases for cancer surgery would be entitled to take survival chances into account - chances that could be adversely effected if a person were a heavy smoker.

The bigger issue - at a societal level - is that if you want a universal healthcare system you should also be prepared to accept policies aimed at reducing health risks. No one can force you to stop smoking, to eat healthily, or exercise regularly but it would be remiss off any healthcare system not to promote such behaviours, particularly where -as in the case of passive smoking - such behaviours can have adverse effects on others.

[Valentin]

"if you want a universal healthcare system you should also be prepared to accept policies aimed at reducing health risks"

Or to accept to pay more. If it's a matter of money, limit it to money only. If it's a matter of public health improvement (not the financial, but the highminded kind), find a way to do that without forcing people to "do what's right". Grownups should have free choice.
Laws should be defensive, not activist.
Nonsmokers should be protected by striking the right balance between nonsmoking/smoking places, rather than by such universal ban.

[azloon]

Terry --

you're right. i skipped your point about health care costs.

imo, the only way your argument about costs makes any sense is in the context of your previously stated position on state-provided healthcare which is there shouldn't be any. in such a society, the state then is not protecting itself from exhorbitant health care costs by legal enforcement of non-smoking areas since it has no role in medical care. but, for europe, whose state-provided healthcare is so firmly established in the culture (and never likely to be different), enforced no-smoking areas makes perfect sense in terms of lower state medical expenditures.

and even in our hybrid system, with the state providing medical care for seniors, it wouldn't make much sense to argue that those under 65 would be exempt from non-smoking regulations based on your argument since their employers often pay their health costs and have an interest in their avoiding unhealthy lifestyles, and later, the goverment, after years of their abusing their bodies.

[john o'doe]

@azloon
Was that Mexican woman well-heeled and now she's well-healed?

[Maggie G]

"Was that Mexican woman well-heeled and now she's well-healed?"

Very clever, John O'Doe / Language Policeman.

Did you make that mistake on purpose, Azloon (I noticed it too) in order to test the alertness of the language police, or was it a genuine mistake?

By the way, the last time it was not a mistake but a typo -- "privelged". A mistake would have been "privledged".

[Blendi]

In London also I have seen “propane parasols" shops will do anything to attract customers. Maybe some great cases will follow with highly acrobatic definitions of “out” and “in” and what constitutes a public space and what not.

Smokers are people too, they are us, so a bit more care should be taken not to make them feel totally excluded. Already as it is they look like orphans smoking in doorways, windows and roofs. Time and time again, bans have not been proven to be the right solution in getting the message through.

I am aware of this only now, - not sure what (or if at all) kind of vibes does a smoker emanate- but when I smoked, was often asked for a cigarette or a lighter at the train station, bus st. shops, road, markets, everywhere.

Since I quit not a single person has attempted to engage me in smoking related activities!

[Dave]

Part of the reason why the smoking ban has had to be enforced by law is that smokers tend to ignore voluntary arrangements. Before the ban was brought in here in England I went to a pub for a meal and went in the non smoking room to eat , and fell out with someone that lit up quite happily. On holiday in Cyprus this year the hotel had an area for non smoking clearly marked up didnt stop a smoker walking to the other end of the bar getting an ash tray and coming back to light his fag.
Since we have had the ban I can go out and when I walk in the pub dont have to try and guess where I will get the least smoke blown on me (have you noticed that smokers hold the cigarette away from themselves so that they dont sit behind a clowd of smoke) and when I go home I dont have to instantly put all my clothes in the wash and have a shower to get rid of the stench

[azloon]

John O'Doe--

i found one cyber source to support my use of 'well-healed' as synonomous with affluent.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/well-healed

but you certainly are, as usual, 'more correct.'

well-heeled being an antonym of down-at-the-heel, 'well-healed' in this context probably is a misuse that's become somewhat acceptable (or at least not shouted down as totally ignornant).

but no disputing that she is now 'well-healed,' irrespective of her bank account.

when will our final test scores be posted? :)

[azloon]

Maggie --

i was joking about 'privelged,' emphasizing my earlier mistake. now, i really don't know how to spell it, having misspelled it once, then mocking the misspelling. i think i'll go back to my original misspelling.

'well-healed' may have been freudian (re my friends recovery), tho i found support for my spelling in some bogus online thesaurus (see link).

i suspect John really doesn't care what we say (perhaps wisely), only how we spell it. i fully expect to hear from him regularly.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Is this another 'exception Francaise'?

[Carlos]

I honestly hope the French ignore this ridicolous obsecene undemocratic law. Second Hand Smoke kills no one- read Enstrom and Kabat and the withdrawn for being too politically incorrect 1998 WHO study.

About business 200 pubs close every year and it is predicted that around 200 of the UKs 800 strong bingo hall stock will close down. Contrary to what people say the law isnt universally respected in Italy. You see enforcement winds down, then so does compliance. The only reason such laws are complied with is through fear, fear of heavy fines like in the UK and Ireland. And even in the UK at least several venues are not complying with the ban, some openly others more subtely! The people dont want such laws- only the vociferous antismoking minority.

Ill also like to add it should be up to the owner whether his or her business should be smokefree or smokefriendly. If people dont want to work in a "smoky" environment I suggest they seek work elsewhere.

[Tim Clarje]

Viva La France!

[NoBanJan]

Come on France fight back against these fascists and don't let them win! freedom2choose.info

[Dartagnan]

We should follow the French example and ignore the smoking ban in the UK. The fightback in the UK has already started with 31st December 2007 declared National Smoking Day.For more information visit :-
nationalsmokingday.com

[mandyv]

I would assume the same happened in France regarding the polls. The majority in the UK did NOT want a blanket ban.
Yes the Enstrom and Kabat peer reviewed study, the biggest ever done. Who the antis tried to discredit,as they do with any one not falling in line with their views. Here is a para from Michael Siegel, onece upon a time antis hero.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Anti-Smoking Groups Using Misleading Scientific Statements to Support Smoking Bans
Not only have more than 100 anti-smoking groups made misleading scientific claims about the acute effects of secondhand smoke, but these deceptive statements are being used to support the need for smoking bans

[Carlos]

If people want to know more about the truth of Second hand smoke check out:

http://www.freedom2choose.info/news_viewer.php?id=429

An Honest Scientist
Colin Grainger
13th December 2007.
Professor James Enstrom is one of a very rare breed these days. He was commissioned to carry out the largest study ever, and when it looked certain that his study would NOT provide the expected conclusion, the sponsors pulled his funding.

Regular readers will be familiar with his work but this document shows just how badly a respected scientist is treated if he deviates from the accepted dogma.

Albert Einstein said "It doesnt matter how many scientists agree with me. It just takes one to prove me wrong".

James Enstrom, I believe, will be recorded in decades to come as the one scientist willing to tell it like it is. The one scientist that proved them wrong.

Anti-smoker jihadi's are often reported as saying "ALL scientists agree", or "No doctor would deny that SHS is a killer of note".

We prove them wrong again here.

(And if that doesnt peel your banana, tomorrow I will show you another 380 scientists who also know that the risks attached to SHS are in serious dispute).

It is a long read, but well worth it.

http://junkscience.com/dec07/Enstrom_Second-hand_tobacco_smoke_2007pdf.pdf

[tracerace]

If you think the French Smoking Ban is not going to harm business' THINK AGAIN!
Visit www.freedom2choose.info
THEY WILL OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE TRUTH!
Since July 1st 2007 British Pubs are shutting at the rate of 50 per week...1000's are joining the dole queue...and Gestapo Smoking Police patrol hospital grounds/gardens to stop you smoking OUTSIDE...
WAKE UP LOVELY FRENCH PEOPLE....OPPOSE THE SMOKING BAN NOW...WHILST YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE...DON'T WAIT AND BE SUCKED IN BY ALL YOUR GOVERNMENTS LIES!!!!!

[Lily]

Carlos, mandyv, Dartagnan and NoBanJan,

You don't happen to know each other by any chance?

I haven't come across your comments before and I'm curious to see what we will read from you on other topics in the future.

A vos souhaits!

[MadPublican]

The difference is here in the UK we know what damage this ban will do. it has closed 2000 pubs in Ireland, 300 in Scotland, 500 in Wales and already 650 in England. it will split comunities and devide friends, put thousands of people out of work and into bankruptsy. it will kill any atmosphere the pub had and push the price of a pint even higher. i know you French are fighters far better than us, stand up now and stop this happening or you will live to regreat it.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"Anti-Smoking Groups Using Misleading Scientific Statements to Support Smoking Bans..."

Pressure groups do this all the time, and some scientists go along for the ride, funding, fame or whatever.

There's dozens of issues that zealous activists want to ram down our throats, and science can always be found to justify their cause (at a price).
No nukes, No GM, No carbon dioxide, No fatty foods, No Macdonalds, No abortions, No gays, No transgenic fats, No overhead cables, etc., are a few that spring to mind.

The role of the media is obvious - it makes for good copy.
The role of governments is usually less obvious, but certainly the desire to boss us around is always there because that can create dependency (on them). Another factor is their need to raise revenue in a world of steadily expanding 'plans' for society, and administrative greed. And of course there is always the legal angle, where the cost of settling a claim arising from such issues can be inordinate.

So, governments pick and choose which issues to foster, which to ignore and which to ban outright, or simply equivocate about.

Tobacco smoking is a big revenue earner for the State. Governments cynically exploit the fact that in most cases it is addictive, thus knowing that controlling its indulgence is not going to cancel their tax income overnight.
Therefore they will equivocate about it.