The Real Riots In France?
If they ban smoking. P.S. I'm all for it. Here's the Reuters story:
Relieved French smokers can muse that every cloud has a silver lining as they enjoy a cigarette at the bar with their morning coffee.The government, weakened by a battle with unions and students over a controversial youth jobs contract, backed away from a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants this week to avoid a confrontation with France's many smokers and tobacconists.
The image of Parisian cafes filled with smoke from pungent Gauloise cigarettes has changed since Socialists forced hostelries to clean up their act in the 1990s, but the idea of a total ban in public places is still a source of controversy.
"Sell Out!" fumed anti-smoking campaigners who accused the government of sacrificing the health of millions.
But smokers, taxed to their filter tips in recent years, quietly puffed their approval after what they saw as a surprise last-minute reprieve.
"I love my daily coffee and cigarette," said Louisa Bunz, 47, as she smoked in a central Paris bar.
The idea of making restaurants tobacco-free and forcing smokers into hermetic, ventilated phone box-style cabins without drinks and food was ridiculous, she said.
"It would be like a little smokers' prison cell," she said.
I think it sounds just charming!
Oh yeah...and while I would never say such a thing...it has occurred to me that the perfect response to somebody who asks "You don't mind me smoking?" is "Not if you don't mind me farting."
I had often thought of lighting up an incense stick in a restaurant to see what the reaction might be. But on 26th March Scotland went smoke-free in all enclosed public spaces, so I guess I can't try that now.
Norman at April 18, 2006 1:03 AM
Wait - you're for businesses choosing to ban smoking (market demands) or for government interference?
Jackie at April 18, 2006 1:20 AM
Government interference, in this case. Smoking has been recognised as a public nuisance, and one with health implications to boot. You're not allowed to defecate in public spaces; why should you be allowed to stink out a public space for your own pleasure?
If you leave it to market forces, you will find that many business keep smoking. I don't have a problem with this, except that some people don't have much choice about where they work. Leaving it to the market means that poorer people will pay the price. Nothing new about that - being poor *means* getting shitty deals in life - but we've got a slightly socialist government here.
Norman at April 18, 2006 3:15 AM
I was having lunch at the bar at Tosca in D.C. a few months ago, and I was bummed out to see (and smell) a couple of people smoking up a storm between courses. I'm not sure what the laws are there, but it looked like no one was smoking at the tables in the dining area.
You're in Scotland, Norm? They smoke like fiends over there, don't they? I visited Edinburgh in 1981, when I was still a grubby little punk rocker. Loved it. Loved the blood pudding wrapped in newspaper.
Lena at April 18, 2006 3:47 AM
Smoke like fiends ... not any more. There was clear majority support for the smoking ban. Blood pudding - we call it black pudding - in newspaper. Not any more! Ingesting printing ink's not so good for you. There has to be clean (unprinted) paper next to the food, though you can have newspaper outside that and get your hands and clothes all inky if you like.
Also ... calling it government interference is somewhat biased. You might not agree with the law, but the government was democratically elected, and the law was passed constitutionally. The government is doing its job.
I was speaking about smoking at coffee this morning. Apparently smoking's banned anywhere there are employees. So you can have smoking in a private club provided the staff are all volunteers. Scotland has a poor public health record - too much black pudding, booze and cigarettes :-) - and I'm glad we're doing something likely to improve that. "In Scotland, seven out of 10 people don't smoke and of those who do, seven out of 10 want to give up." - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/03/24150445
Norman at April 18, 2006 5:02 AM
All I know is I'm really grateful for the restaurant and workplace smoking bans here in CA. Back when I worked in an office with people who smoked all day, I was constantly getting colds, bronchitis, sinus infections. My health improved dramatically once I didn't have to breathe everyone else's smoke.
Amy, I know the common assumption is that "everyone" in France smokes. Is that the case, or does it just seem that way? Back when I was in high school. I'm also wondering if their overall rates of lung cancer and emphysema are high.
deja pseu at April 18, 2006 6:01 AM
Doh, some of my comment was dropped.
"Back when I was in high school" we had some French high school exchange students staying with friends for the summer and a I think a smaller percentage of them smoked than kids at my high school at the time (mid-70's).
deja pseu at April 18, 2006 6:05 AM
I'm a libertarian except when I can't breathe.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2006 6:24 AM
And no, not everyone in France smokes. Five-year-olds, for example, are smoke free.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2006 6:25 AM
So you want to impose your preferences on other people?
I think it's fine if a restaurant says: "No screaming children", or "no smoking", or "no alcohol", or "no men without jacket and tie".
If you want to open a no-smoking hotel with a no-smoking restaurant and bar, that's fine too. If you even want to refuse to hire someone because they smoke, that's fine too. But then you can't complain if smokers open their own clubs, bars, hotels and businesses.
I'm appaled at the dereliction of personal responsibility involved in supporting a smoking ban in someone else's business premises.
Who gives YOU the right to force my boss to stop smoking in her office? If she retires and closes the business, will you pay my wages? I don't smoke but I took this job knowing that there was a room where people smoke.
For someone who supposedly advizes people on how to get a grip on their lives, you show a blind trust in the motives of politicians and bureaucrats, who don't give a tinker's cuss about smoking, but love the power to interfere.
If a smoking ban is ok, why isn't gun control? Or banning sugar? Or banning alcohol advertisements? Or banning alcohol? You may wish to kid yourself that these issues are not related, but I suggest you speak to Sean Gabb about this, next time you're in London.
What is it about atheists that they complain about the largely imaginary threats to freedom that Christians represent, and then simultaneously proceed to behave like control freaks over every aspect of our lives? Hitler was an atheist who hated smokers, meat eaters and Jews. Stalin's only humanizing feature was his pipe.
The Spanish Inquisition did not interfere with how we lived, worked, ate, in anything like the extent that modern European governments do, and the taxes were a lot lower too.
As for your response about farting. Go ahead, if you mean it with good grace and humour. But don't pretend that by making a gross response to a polite inquiry that you are behaving in a reasonable manner.
By all means advise people to stop smoking. By all means organise a boycott of all businesses that allow it. By all means cut yourself off frim those of your friends who tolerate smokers. Be rude to them if you must. But leave the government out of it, unless you support totalitarianism.
Antoine Clarke at April 19, 2006 2:30 AM
Antoine, I posted this in jest, but I go to France knowing people smoke, and it's an enormous public health issue. You bring up this point:
Who gives YOU the right to force my boss to stop smoking in her office? If she retires and closes the business, will you pay my wages? I don't smoke but I took this job knowing that there was a room where people smoke.
How come smokers don't pay a tax that picks up the cost of their care when they get emphysema and lung cancer, on top of normal health insurance costs? And when you get sick or die from second-hand smoke because you took a job where people smoke, what then? Do the cigarette companies pay, or do the rest of us?
There's an English economist, Pigou, whose work I read about in Paul Hawken's book -- he suggests businesses pay the full costs of their products, not just take profits. Right now, the cost of cigarette smoking is borne by the public. Shouldn't righting that be the first concern of any libertarian?
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2006 5:33 AM
I'm sure Steve Martin will excuse you for ripping him off. (farting...)
Rodger at April 19, 2006 10:55 AM
Rodger, always happy to give you an opportunity to dispense your bile. I'm somebody who's fanatical about giving credit (note the toilet piece from a day or so ago...I didn't post photos from it until I had written permission from the people who took them). I give the example of photos because that's an area in which so many people are lax. The photos on this site are either mine or those I've requested and gotten permission to use. Can you say the same about your site? I wouldn't know, since I don't read you.
Anyway, I don't steal, and if I had read that instead of thinking it in my own little red hair-covered head, I would have credited the author. Naturally, you assume the worst of me -- probably because you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, and can't live without leaving your name in the comments; a little Rodger-shaped turdlet.
P.S. Hasn't Cathy Seipp written anything to piss you off today?
Go away! Shoo!
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2006 1:06 PM
"I'm appaled at the dereliction of personal responsibility involved in supporting a smoking ban in someone else's business premises."
I'm appaled at the dereliction of etiquite, and personal responsibility that allows smokers to smoke inside a building. It's wrong, prima facia. You should not even smoke in 'your own' house.
Property ownership is really property stewardship. Unless your house is pre-fab, in that case you might outlive it.
Smokers, get this through: smoking is nasty, gross, harmfull, and we aint gonna take it anymore. Untill all smokers accept this reality, we will need these type of laws.
I live in Nevada, casino country. The big casinos allow and encourage smoking inside. But they have built in high volume ventilation systems that remove the smoke to a level where it is tolerable to non-smokers, IMnon-smokingO. I'm sure this doesn't address all of the health concerns, but it is an example of market force causing business to behave responsibly so as not to loose a great portion of their customers.
Until all businesses and individuals smoke responsibly, we will need these laws to protect the poor, endagered, cocktail waitresses.
GISSTUD at April 19, 2006 3:03 PM
GISSTUD
I disagree with your premise that "Property ownership is really property stewardship. Unless your house is pre-fab, in that case you might outlive it." If you believe that there is no such concept as the right of property ownership, then I don't see why you should be allowed to live in better conditions than the worst off person in the world. So for starters all "our" wealth should be redistributed to the lowest common denominator. Then we should not be allowed to live in better environments than other people (I don't think you could object to an open borders policy for the USA). You presumably could not allow anyone to live alone in a house so long as other people live on sidewalks in Calcutta. Finally, I don't see how you have a right to both your kidneys, or cornea, or all your blood, so long as anyone else is short. After all, your body could be just as reasonably defined as a stewardship of carbons, water and biomass as your property, if we reject property rights.
Antoine Clarke at April 22, 2006 4:54 AM
Amy,
I confess I realized after posting the comment that you were kidding. You know how us Brits and Frogs have no concept of irony!
I'm against all compulsory taxation, but it is fair enough to complain that if someone is engaging in risky behaviour for pleasure (smoking, drug taking, alcohol binges, coffee, skiing, rock climing, flying a helicopter) they shouldn't expect others to pay their medical (or funeral) expenses. I think we agree on this.
As far as smoking is concerned, we don't have that problem in Europe (I don't know what tobacco taxes are like in the USA). If we assume that every smoker who gets heart disease and cancer got it from smoking (which seems to be what the statistics are manufactured to say in the UK), they still pay four times more in tobacco taxes then the total cost of treating them by tax-funded healthcare (and some of them go private and pay up anyway).
I haven't looked at the figures recently but it used to be the case that tobacco taxes covered half the total cost of state-provided healthcare in the UK, but the smokers "cost" one eighth.
However, the smokers were also paying the other taxes that cover healthcare, and into the state pension scheme (which if they die young means they're overpaying). Also it is ridiculous to imagine that all heart disease in smokers is caused by cigarettes for two reasons: 1) a lot of smokers do not have healthy diets and lifestyles generally (so some of them must be getting ill from eating too much fat and not doing enough exercise); 2) a lot of non-smokers get heart disease and some even get lung-cancer, probably from air pollution caused by, among other things, the motor car.
Antoine Clarke at April 22, 2006 5:09 AM
Leave a comment