Smoking ban to be introduced to France in 2007

.. i.e. it's illegal to serve tainted food or not to have fire exits

And why, Glenn, is that kind of thing illegal?

According to your previous statement, you don't agree with ANY mandatory laws imposed by the government.

Yet the government, our government is supposed to be by the people (unfortunately, I don't think it is anymore, at least not under the current system, but that's just me bleating). The government IS the people, right?

So it's just the people setting up agreed upon rules. Like banning tainted meat. For the common good of the people. You don't want to die from eating tainted meat; I don't want to die from eating in smoke-filled restaurants.

And that "right to not work" you mention? When you're on the bottom end of the old socio-economic scale, you get damned few choices about where you "choose" to work and not work. So when the choice comes down to making a living, or feeding your kids, or staying off of welfare and food stamps and the alternative of working in a smoke-filled workplace, what's that worker going to do?

Sorry, I've been in places in my life where the only right to not work was a right to starve. I did what I had to do, and put up with people who were being unreasonable, if not downright sadistic and cruel, because the only "right" I was allowed was the right to earn a living for me and my family. Go without food for about three days, and you'll see how important those rights are.

I think it is eminently reasonable in a human society to request people to obey certain communally-agreed-upon restrictions. And I think allowing public-traffic places to be free of carcinogenic cigarette smoke is reasonable.

Glenn: If it sounded like I was trying to jump up and down on you....I wasn't, and I apologize for sounding so strident in my last post.

Not you, sir. Just me going off on a rant. I understand your position...and part of me certainly agrees with what you're saying, because I used to feel that way as well. It's just the old liberal crusader leaping forth again, thassall.

So, once again, my apologies. No offense intended.

But you want to do more than protect people. You are saying that even if everyone there wants to smoke, including the workers, that they can't do a legal activity on private property. And you make a private business sound like it's a bus station where people have to go. It's a best semi-public in that people are allowed to go there if they want but scarecly necessary. And in a world were 4/5 of people don't smoke and that number is growing all the time (at least in this country) and we have full employment according to the government, I find it very, very unlikely that the ONLY place a person could work was smoke filled. By the way, under this logic, coal mines should certainly be illegal not to mention lots of other hazardous occupations, such a taxi driver.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you folks. Just take it that I'm a old cranky guy who is sort of prickly about government invading our personal lives and property.

If I have annoyed anyone, I am sorry.

Best Wishes to all,
Glenn

Hey, Glenn, you've got every right to argue your position.

And you make some very good arguments too. Some of the things you've mentioned I have struggled with in the past.

You haven't offended anyone. Certainly not me, and I know you haven't offended Robin (he likes a good civil debate). And Bob very rarely gets offended. He gets all lawyerly sometimes, but rarely offended.

This is just vigorous discussion, thassall.

Glenn, I'm not at all annoyed, just interested in your side of the argument. So far, though, your expression of principle is so one sided -- and frankly wrong under our system of government, for example, it's settled that restaurants are public places.

I would like, for example, to believe that a significant number of restaurant owners would become non-smoking public establishments even if there wasn't a ban on smoking. That didn't seem to happen in practice in this country. The chances of survival are so poor for most restaurants that they apparently cannot survive losing the 10 to 20% of potential patrons that want to smoke. Ergo, they opt for smoking sections, generally ineffective in my personal experience over the past 50 years.

I'm a cranky OF, admittedly, but much happier now that I can choose virtually any restaurant and able to enjoy a smoke free environment to enjoy my food, wine and company of smokers and non-smokers alike.

Regards, Bob

Glenn, I'm not at all annoyed, just interested in your side of the argument. So far, though, your expression of principle is so one sided -- and frankly wrong under our system of government, for example, it's settled that restaurants are public places.

I would like, for example, to believe that a significant number of restaurant owners would become non-smoking public establishments even if there wasn't a ban on smoking. That didn't seem to happen in practice in this country. The chances of survival are so poor for most restaurants that they apparently cannot survive losing the 10 to 20% of potential patrons that want to smoke. Ergo, they opt for smoking sections, generally ineffective in my personal experience over the past 50 years.

I'm a cranky OF, admittedly, but much happier now that I can choose virtually any restaurant and able to enjoy a smoke free environment to enjoy my food, wine and company of smokers and non-smokers alike.

Regards, Bob

Bob.

I really don't disagree with you on much of what you say either. I know restaurants are public places and can be regulated. For example, you can't discriminate who you serve in restaurants on account of race and to get there the courts held that the restaurants were public places. But I think there is a difference in that the very activity being done was declared illegal... that is the discrimination. The odd thing here is that smoking is perfectly legal.

And I do think we would have gotten much the same result without laws if the nonsmokers had been willing to vote with their feet. If a restaurant owner was concerned about the 10 to 20% who smoked, how would that owner feel if 80-90% of his business went away? And I, like you, much prefer an smoke free environment but I like to think, probably foolishly, that it is my choice.

Glenn

The odd thing here is that smoking is perfectly legal.

This seems to be a rather strange thing for you to base your argument on.

Would you prefer if smoking were made illegal for some supposed consistency?

It seems to me that it is helpful not to think in such absolute terms and view laws as contextual, which they are. The point is not that smoking is an illegal action but that it is very invasive and the smoker's "free will" pervades the free will of everyone around him/her.

Same reason we have zoning laws, air rights, etc, not because it's illegal to build chemical factories, but because building them 2 feet away from a kindergarten's playground is not in the best interest of the public. Or so we have decided.

removed

I've never heard about a smoker going out in the middle of the night to kill someone to get a cigarette like drunks and drug Aggie's do

That's because the taxes aren't high enough yet, but when they become expensive enough..

I believe that smokers have the same rights as people who drink.

They do, Johnny, they do. Have the same rights, I mean. They also have the same types of limitations on their actions and behaviors.

If a drinker can't control him/herself, and invades other people's space, then there's cause under law for that drinker to be asked to modify the behavior, or be restrained, removed, or arrested. Happens all the time. Happens a hell of a lot more than busting someone for smoking, I can tell you that.

I also have the same rights to be relatively free of cigarette smoke (and public displays of drunkeness, fighting, offensive behavior) in public places. That's what is meant by public, after all: where different people congregate. Like businesses, government offices, and restaurants and bars.

Yes, it's a sadder place when we realize we have to legislate reasonable and responsible behavior (like not blowing smoke in someone's face when they are eating a meal). But it is necessary.

"Most people that are 30 years old and smoke know that smoling upsets some people and work hard not to upset them."???? Sorry, but there's more people out there who selfishly want to light up to satisfy themselves and don't give a tinker's damn about other people nearby. Often the same people you see driving along with three kids in the car, puffing away like crazy on their cigarette.

I've had countless numbers of people spoil very expensive dinners with their cigarette smoke. There was a party of two just last week in Michigan that did that. And, sorry again, the ventilation just did. not. work!!! I sat as far away as I could, even moved out of the dining area, and still I was gagging from the acrid reek of cigarette smoke. And this was in a hotel.

I'd like to think we wouldn't have to legislate behavior either. But we do. We do.

Does anyone really favor a world where the government legislates what legal activities you can and cannot do and what you can or cannot eat? Glenn

Glenn, just so you know, I am a libertarian at heart. I reminisce fondly about the days when I could carry a gun, drink beer while driving, beat somebody up when he deserved it, and even smoke in the hospital while getting a back rub by a candy-striper. But logically I can understand and appreciate the restraints, especially considering the kinds of monsters our overcrowding is producing. That's something that needs to be restrained.

Covert

"And I do think we would have gotten much the same result without laws if the nonsmokers had been willing to vote with their feet."

Glen, believe me, I tried for many years. There are two big problems: one, if you have friends, especially from other countries, you almost have to be willing to patronize smoking restaurants -- the odds are one in five, and in the past perhaps 2 or 3 in five that at least one of the people in my party were smokers. It would be extremely rude, I thought, to ask my guests or even worse my host, not to smoke when others in the restaurant were doing so.

Second, I live in an area of the country with an enormous range of very fine restaurants -- northern New Jersey and New York City. Smoke free restaurants were very rare -- they could be found, but I'm sure there were never more than 10%, and those heavy on the veggie joints. Not that I have anything against veggies you understand ... but with the help of the FLDGers here, I can steam a mean veggie at home. :-)

Regafrds, Bob

Removed

And I do think we would have gotten much the same result without laws if the nonsmokers had been willing to vote with their feet. If a restaurant owner was concerned about the 10 to 20% who smoked, how would that owner feel if 80-90% of his business went away? And I, like you, much prefer an smoke free environment but I like to think, probably foolishly, that it is my choice.
Glenn

Doesn't work like that. You walk into a restaurant. No-one's smoking. You sit at a table, order 3 courses. They bring wine, it's open on the table. Three people at the table next to you start smoking. How're you going to vote with your feet now? Sure, you can never return to the restaurant. But that doesn't help tonight's meal, does it?
cheers,
Graeme

And I do think we would have gotten much the same result without laws if the nonsmokers had been willing to vote with their feet. If a restaurant owner was concerned about the 10 to 20% who smoked, how would that owner feel if 80-90% of his business went away? And I, like you, much prefer an smoke free environment but I like to think, probably foolishly, that it is my choice.
Glenn

Doesn't work like that. You walk into a restaurant. No-one's smoking. You sit at a table, order 3 courses. They bring wine, it's open on the table. Three people at the table next to you start smoking. How're you going to vote with your feet now? Sure, you can never return to the restaurant. But that doesn't help tonight's meal, does it?
cheers,


Graeme

I remember when we were in Argentina for 6 months 2 years ago and I was pregnant. There are no "smoking sections" or "smoke free" restaurants. In public places you can't get away from it. One time a person lit their cigarette next to our table and I asked the manager if he could ask them to move and they did. Otherwise, I would have vomited everywhere. There is nothing that can make an early pregnant woman as nauseous as cigarette smoke.

I guess I can't imagine lighting a cigarette next to a table of non- smokers and not thinking it might bother them.

Ronica,

Your reaction is culturally conditioned. What seems impossibly off the wall to you is perfectly normal here.

It is not deemed impolite to smoke in a restaurant, nor can anyone know when the woman next to you is pregnant!

However this will all change.

Personally, if I feel like smoking in a restaurant, I ask the people either side of me if they mind. Once or twice people have said they preferred I not smoke, and I was glad to comply.

Best regards,
Alex R.[/u]

Alex, I know you are right. A good friend of mine in Argentina (who happened to be a doctor) told me that it wasn't too long ago that the doctors use to walk down the hallways of the hospitals smoking cigarettes! She even told me that her obstetrician advised her to only smoke 4-5 cigarettes a day while she was pregnant! I was floored.

So, I agree our culture is much more sensitive to smoking. Personally, I don't care if a person smokes, as long as I don't have to inhale it. And, I don't mind going to a restaurant that has a smoking section as long as it has a non-smoking section as well.

In fact, Rahsaan may have been at that dinner!

Yes, but I was probably so caught up in the reverie that I didn't notice.

Still, I usually find smoke very very offensive.

Fish? Is that in Paris?

(Better not be in Berkeley. If I found out you came up to Berkeley on holiday and didn't tell me, I am going to be sorely pissed.)

Yes, Fish is in Paris. Owned by a Cuban American however, with some staff from Berkeley. So it's as if you had never left. Except the wine is cheaper, fresher, and the food is different, plus the view.. Anyway..

[James Roscoe]

Yes, Fish is in Paris. Owned by a Cuban American however, with some staff from Berkeley. So it's as if you had never left. Except the wine is cheaper, fresher, and the food is different, plus the view.. Anyway..

In other words, it's in Berkley and the last person they are ever gonna tell about it is Hoke. Way to screw up Randy!

Yes, Fish is in Paris. Owned by a Cuban American however, with some staff from Berkeley. So it's as if you had never left. Except the wine is cheaper, fresher, and the food is different, plus the view.. Anyway..

In other words, it's in Berkley and the last person they are ever gonna tell about it is Hoke. Way to screw up Randy!

Hey, Randy is still miffed that I wouldn't drive from Sonoma down to Santa Barbara to see him. Seems he was too busy lying around on the beach in his Speedo and slathering cocoanut oil all over himself.

(I tried to go anyway, just 'cause Eve was there too, but couldn't make it.)

Alex, I know you are right. A good friend of mine in Argentina (who happened to be a doctor) told me that it wasn't too long ago that the doctors use to walk down the hallways of the hospitals smoking cigarettes! She even told me that her obstetrician advised her to only smoke 4-5 cigarettes a day while she was pregnant! I was floored

I'm dating myself but I remember when smoking was common in US hospitals as well. I started smoking cigars to look older. Not a problem now.