Description
By Laws 3370/2005, 3730/2008 and 3868/2010 we are targeting the total ban on smoking in closed public spaces in Greece, limiting youth access to tobacco products, improving the effectiveness of warning signs on tobacco products, strengthening of prohibitions on promotion and presentation, raising taxes and prices of tobacco products to reduce demand and enacting actors of protection and control for the use of tobacco. Moreover we are promoting and supporting measures and actions to improve the accurate information of the population and stop smoking and cessation of existing smokers.
Statement
We would like to raise our voices against calls and actions to ban smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Many people believe that the dangers of smoking and passive smoking are currently being exaggerated to the point of hysteria. The risks of passive smoke have never been proven beyond meaningless levels in a small minority of studies - wildly varying estimates of hundreds or thousands of deaths are based not on body counts but statistical projections.
See relevant links:
By Laws 3370/2005, 3730/2008 and 3868/2010 we are targeting the total ban on smoking in closed public spaces in Greece, limiting youth access to tobacco products, improving the effectiveness of warning signs on tobacco products, strengthening of prohibitions on promotion and presentation, raising taxes and prices of tobacco products to reduce demand and enacting actors of protection and control for the use of tobacco. Moreover we are promoting and supporting measures and actions to improve the accurate information of the population and stop smoking and cessation of existing smokers.
Statement
We would like to raise our voices against calls and actions to ban smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Many people believe that the dangers of smoking and passive smoking are currently being exaggerated to the point of hysteria. The risks of passive smoke have never been proven beyond meaningless levels in a small minority of studies - wildly varying estimates of hundreds or thousands of deaths are based not on body counts but statistical projections.
60 comments:
I am convinced that smoking in public places - active or even passive - does indeed influence our health and affects also the quality of life.
However, when considering smoking banning policies the Greek reality is difficult to address. People will hardly accept such measures and even imposing penalties has not worked so far.
I fully agree with smoking banning in all public spaces
Our gallery is a public space, so it is important to banning smoke in such public spaces. We can not work, socialize and meet each other in a smoking environment
I definitely agree with smoking banning in public places. Especially in Greece there is no public place that bans smoking and as i am a non-smoker i hate it.
What we must do is apply strict laws that punish those that do not comply with it
Many countries have already banned smoking in public spaces. As a result more people quit smoking altogether. Smoking banning proved to be the more effective means to convince people to quit smoking and start living a healthier life. As Greeks are among the heaviest smokers in the world, I believe that they would greatly benefit from these measurements.
I am all for banning smoking in public places however I am very much concerned about the applicability of this policy as well as the ways to enforce it.
But how does that affect business? Do customers/visitors accept that or do they protest or even break the law?
They can not break the law, even there is no a strict law enforcement. It is up to the gallery owner to ban smoking. In Greece we have a lot of open spaces, so the customers can smoke. Thsi is the case for us
Check the 1st link, Greece is a country where smoking still aloud in public spaces
http://www.epha.org/spip.php?article3953
children are affected
My argument is the following: using cars creates pollution. Pollution causes asthma and other serious diseases. Thus WE SHOULD BAN ALL UNNECESSARY COMMUTING, if it does not involve life or death matters, or job commuting. The people that circulate in the streets with their privately owned cars should declare through a website to the police their intended route and purpose of transport.The police should perform random checks of circulating vehicles, and impose penalties and heavy fines to violators of the traffic restrictions.
if you agree on the aforementioned approach, then i am in favor of banning smoking from all places. If we start banning things based on each person's preferences, then who is to say what should be banned? And where will it end?
I believe that the anti-smoking hysteria has reached unprecedented levels. If we want to eliminate factors that shorten human lifespan, we could start by more severe ones like the financial crisis, idiotic political parties and irritation from meaningless debates.
You are exaggerating to make an obvious point. Yes, there are many things in the modern way of life that affect our health, and we cannot ban everything. However smoking in a closed public place by multiple persons can be unbearable to non-smokers and it is equal to them smoking as well. But the statement above does not concern smoking banning in general. Just smoking inside restaurants, bars etc. So, would it be so difficult for smokers just go outside for 5' and smoke, as happens all over the world? And yes, we cannot ban cars or factories etc. but we can definitely move one step forward and protect non-smokers in public places.
But i thought that Greek parliament voted a relevant law recently forbidding smoking in public places, didn't it?
I think that George has a point. However, consider the space that cars are using and a smoker in a bar for example.
I think that when it comes to children smokers that ignore them are the worst.
Hi to everybody. To ban or not to ban? This is the question. And there is only one answer: Ban it now!
But the real question is "How?".
Well, commuting -or driving a car for what is worth- may be a matter of livelihood, a necessity. Is smoking such an important issue as well?
Sorry but this is not what is happening all over the world. Smoking should and is already banned in all closed public places in Greece such as museums, subways, public services.
It is even banned in the open-air railway platforms, although it is allowed in most European countries.
When it comes to bars/restaurants, in Germany for example, you can find bars and restaurants where smoking is allowed.
You can even find bars and restaurants with two separate sections for smokers and non smokers.
The owners can choose whether their bar is smoking or non smoking, and this is what I think makes sense.
If you are a non-smoker then just stay away from those areas that target smokers. Everybody should be given the right to choose.
Make people pay, unfortunately this is the only way in my opinion. Paying hurts your pocket and you might think twice next time, whereas other people's comments or generally showing respect to others doesn't make any difference to smokers
Sure, that's effective, but you have to use police or other resources to do so. These again could be used for more important reasons. We live in dangerous times.
First of all, there probably isn't anyone that believes that smoking is good for ones health. Having said that, I believe that something has to be done in order to protect those who don't smoke by choice, however total banning, the way it's tried to be enforced, affects the rights of those who choose to smoke, despite the dangers. Prohibitions was never a good way to convince someone. After all, maters like this in general, are auto-regulated when it comes to adults with common sense. In most cases, if someone is annoyed by ones smoke, all it takes is to ask him to put the cigarette out. Someone who doesn't respect other, probably won't respect any form of prohibition.
It's a bit strange to try to stop 95% of people in a place smoking in favor of the other 5% who choose to be there.
I think that the effort should be concentrated in the direction of appropriate ventilation of a place for short term handling of the problem and appropriate education and public awareness in the long term, in order to have people voluntary quit smoking.
After all, if smoking is to be banned in such a way, wouldn't it be easier to prohibit the selling of tobacco products in general, regarding of the companies' interests it affects?
There are definitely many activities that harm the environment and consequently the inhabitants of the planet and obviously the most sensible action is to do our best to diminish these activities, as this is to our own benefit. Transportation is of course such an activity and it is sensible to push people to environment friendly means of transportation. There are obvious movements towards this direction (e.g. increasing use of solar and wind energy) but this solution is much more complicated and it will take much more time. And the key differentiation is that transportation serves very important and in many cases critical needs.
Smoking is an addiction which does not serve anything more than pleasing the addicted person while harming him/herself and the surrounding persons. As smokers neither have the power of will to get over this addiction nor the courtesy to respect the surrounding people, the sensible action from the government is to protect the non-addicts by forbidding smoking in public places. The only problem is that the addicts are too many to make this restriction easily feasible.
I agree. The only solution is heavy fines to those that do not comply with the law
Nop, paying fines didn't work as it was attempted twice in the last few years, Greeks always find a way to get away without it. Due to the structure of economy, or maybe the low level corruption existing between restaurant/bar owners and the state I think it is almost impossible to convince people by threatening with penalties.
I am really puzzled with the question of "how", strong anti-smoking campaigns with TV spots etc. is the only answer I can come up with to gradually change smokers' minds.
@Kleo: By creating smoker optional places it is like separating people into two social groups.
As such, you are excluding access to people from both social groups (smokers and non-smokers). Is that fair? Is the right to access public spaces less important than not smoking for an hour or two?
Please see comments in line:
"You are exaggerating to make an obvious point. "
Exaggeration is my second nature
"es, there are many things in the modern way of life that affect our health, and we cannot ban everything."
We can if we want.
"But the statement above does not concern smoking banning in general. "
My point was also not for all areas, except for the major cities with smog.
"So, would it be so difficult for smokers just go outside for 5' and smoke"
Yes it would. By the way, aren't cell phones accused of cancers? Why not banning cell phones, or discussions from cell phones in public places? Which by the way cancels their entire usefulness.
" as happens all over the world?"
All over the world there is a variety of solutions. Separation of smokers from non smokers, bars select which type they want to be (smoking/non smoking) etc.
"move one step forward and protect non-smokers in public places."
direction is a matter of observer position
I don't think that someone who comes and sits among non-smoking people and lights up his/her cigar will just put it out if somebody asks them to. Maybe only if they get asked by Tackleberry :)
If he has a bit of common sense he probably will. If not, I don't think that he will pay attention to any form of prohibition. It's a whole different case to be in a place where 95% smokes and totally different in a place where the majority is not smoking.
People generally don't have the tendency to stand out in public in a bad way.
For example, prior to the building of Metro, nobody though not to smoke or litter in the subway, because it was already filthy and everyone acted the same way, so he didn't stand out. Nowadays, hardly anyone acts this way in the Metro stations, and if he did, he would negatively stand out.
It all comes down to the level of ones mind!
"Why not banning cell phones, or discussions from cell phones in public places?"
Some of your examples, sorry to say, are completely irrelevant. Cell phones are indeed accused of cancers as well (I didn't have one until recently btw), but when one speaks to his cell phone in a public place the radiation is obviously not so strong to affect the others!!
When 10 people smoke into a small bar, other customers inhale their smoke, so it affects them, but they do not have a choice, while buying a cell phone is your choice..simple as that
@Giorgos ' "Yes, there are many things in the modern way of life that affect our health, and we cannot ban everything."
We can if we want.'
OK, seriously speaking we cannot ban cars in the city because people need them to go to work, if there is no public transport near by. We cannot ban all factories due to pollution, or else we would all go live in the nature without laptops, kitchens and fridge:). We can however limit pollution by strictly controlling the function, the number and the trash of various factories but this is a whole other issue.
@Konstantinos Tserpes: No one is really excluded. Being a smoker, you would still be given the choice to enter a non-smoking place, if you want to. Likewise, if you are a non-smoker, you would still be able to enter a smoking place. That sounds fair to me. Note that I am only talking about bars and restaurants.
1
To understand the current situation, we need to understand that antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. Most of the antismoking campaigns have been exterminatory, i.e., a prohibition on the sale of tobacco. Antismoking crusades don’t just pop-up out of thin air. It requires people with particular beliefs to infect government health bureaucracies. The two major groups that have pushed antismoking crusades are those with questionable religious (e.g., Temperance) leanings and those with medical (e.g., eugenics) leanings. Typical to both groups is fanaticism. The fanatics, zealots, believe they are going to “fix up” society. Rather, they do great damage. Fanatics run on a plethora of inflammatory lies concerning “danger” and “hazard”. These lies promote irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, social division, bigotry. The real danger comes when government buys into the hysteria of fanaticism.
The two antismoking crusades of early last century were in America and Nazi Germany. The common thread was Eugenics (physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians attempting to “engineer” a “superior” human herd).
For those not familiar with eugenics, it was popularized in America early last century. The Germans were students of American eugenics. There was also a very intimate connection between the mega-wealthy in America that supported/funded eugenics and the mega-wealthy in Germany, e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie. Many are familiar with the racial/breeding dimension of eugenics for which eugenics is most notorious. However, it also has a behavioral dimension. For example, eugenics is anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, has dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, and promotes [only] physical fitness. It should come as no surprise that in eugenics-dominated America of early last century came antismoking laws in quite a number of states, Prohibition (alcohol), and an attempt at a tobacco version of Prohibition. The anti-tobacco/alcohol theme was continued in the eugenics of Nazi Germany.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5339
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
2
The current crusade:
Although the official line fed to the public since the 1970s has been that antismoking measures have been undertaken to “protect” nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”, the current crusade, like most antismoking crusades over the last 400 years, is a social-engineering, tobacco-eradication crusade. Indoor and outdoor bans were planned in the 1970s, years before the first study on secondhand smoke. See the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com Rather than ban the sale of tobacco, the goal this time has been to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people typically smoke in the quest for the smokefree “utopia”. Step by step, the “science” has been made up to fit the agenda. Have a look at the website for the recent World Conference on Tobacco or Health (these conferences began in the 1960s and produced the Godber Blueprint in the 1970s). Look at the top. You’ll see “Towards a Tobacco Free World”. This has been the goal from the outset:
http://wctoh2012.org/
Secondhand smoke “danger” has been a concoction to give the appearance that antismoking measures are not a social engineering exercise. But this masquerade is long over. There are now smoking bans instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, walking trails, university campuses, where there is not even a concocted health issue for nonsmokers. Employment bans on smokers, also seen earlier last century in America and Germany, are proliferating. There are increasing instances of medical treatment being refused to smokers, and smokers denied housing, even the elderly. In the UK, smokers are disqualified from foster care and adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained – either physically or chemically (sedation) – rather than allow them to have a cigarette, even outside.
What should be disturbing is that the medical establishment is again venturing into social engineering. It was medicos that led the derangement early last century. It was supported by the mega-wealthy and the “educated” classes. It should be disturbing that there has been a similar assault on the Hippocratic Oath over the last three decades as occurred in the German medical establishment in the lead-up to Nazism. It should be disturbing that science has again been hijacked to serve agenda. It should be disturbing that the current social-engineering, antismoking crusade was put into motion by a self-installed medical elite operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is the standard eugenics personnel – e.g., physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians. They use the typical, vulgar methodology of propaganda/denormalization. They believe they have a definitive world view that all must abide by; they aspire to societal rule.
The word “eugenics” has rarely been used post-WWII, given its negative connotations. The obsession with physical health that emerged in the 1970s is called “healthism”. Yet healthism is the behavioral dimension of eugenics by another name.
3
It also needs to be understood that since early-to-mid 2000s, most countries have signed up to the World Health Organization “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”. This treaty requires that countries institute certain bans within a certain time frame. Some countries are more ahead on the “engineering” path than others.
For example, Fotis says “But the statement above does not concern smoking banning in general. Just smoking inside restaurants, bars etc. So, would it be so difficult for smokers just go outside for 5' and smoke, as happens all over the world?”
Sorry, Fotis, but those in English-speaking countries have heard that trash before. When indoor bans were being instituted in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, UK), the typical statement by antismoking fanatics was “What’s the big deal. You just have to go outside to have a cigarette”. This in itself can be a problem if the weather is very cold. Well, what happened in these countries was that as soon as indoor bans were instituted, the fanatics started to push for outdoor bans. Now, in many areas of these same countries, smoking is banned from outdoor dining areas, within so many metres of entranceways, in parks, beaches, entire university campuses. Fanatics will constantly lie to push their agenda, i.e., pathological lying. Their only interest is in getting bans legislated.
Here’s a recent example from the Ireland:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-Health-Minister-seeks-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-beaches-and-parks-148369965.html
You’ll notice that outdoor bans have nothing to do with “protecting” nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. It has to do with depicting smokers as “bad” role models. Being people with a “terribly bad” (according to antismokers) habit, smoking should not be seen in public, particularly by children who might be “led astray”. These are also the words of George Godber 35 years ago. This is really a [fake] moralist crusade where one group (antismokers) has convinced themselves that they are “superior” to another group (smokers), and that the “inferior” group should be removed from normal society for the “good” of society.
So the enforcement of the law has a serious problem
“The use of tobacco, in any form, is a dirty, filthy, disgusting, degrading habit....
You have no more right to pollute with tobacco smoke the atmosphere which clean people have to breathe than you have to spit in the water which they have to drink.
.... use of the filthy, nasty, stinking stuff [tobacco]”
Sound familiar? These are the sorts of sentiments that are common amongst contemporary antismokers. Interesting is that the quote above is from an anti-tobacco billboard (photo circa 1915) on the road leading into Zion, Illinois, USA. When considering the sentiments appearing on the billboard, it must be remembered that this was many, many decades before the concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”.
Zion City was a “utopian” community established in the early-1900s by John Alexander Dowie representing a so-called “Christian” sect (Christian Catholic Church). Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling were banned within Zion.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=55422
http://yeskarthi.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/1915-anti-smoking-sign-zion-illinois/
Serious, dangerous fanaticism/extremism was rife in America right up to WWII. The Temperance (religious leanings) and Eugenics (physicians, physicalists) Movements, both having dictatorial tendencies and a delusional emphasis on and obsession with physical health at the expense of all other dimensions of health, wreaked considerable damage in America.
The EM was by far the most influential in America and eventually produced catastrophe in Nazi Germany with global consequences. The Temperance and Eugenics Movements shared the anti-tobacco sentiments in the quote above. While they attempted to change society with destructive consequences, Dowie chose to create his own “protected” community.
I strongly agree with Fotis
Wikipedia report,check the 4th link is telling the truth, even the law is strict and straight
From Bayer & Stuber:
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now, particularly exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS), it been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute smoke. This is a recent phenomenon. It says nothing about the physical properties of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda.
Just because there are different advocators and different reasons to support smoking banning doesnt make the advocators dishonest. Personaly I feel more comfortable going to places that enforce the ban. I wouldnt nesesarily go as far as other anti-smoking advocates but there are good enough reasons to fight smoking all together:
"Tobacco is the single largest cause of avoidable death in the EU accounting for over 650,000 deaths each year. It is estimated that the sickness and death caused by smoking costs EU countries at least 100 billion euro a year, the equivalent of 1% of GDP. (Source: European Public Health Alliance)"
http://www.efpia.eu/Content/Default.asp?PageID=573
Years ago seat belts were optinal, at the end the financial reasons prevailed.
In which link you are referring to?
Sorry, Omri, but you’re reciting inflammatory propaganda. Do you know how those figures were arrived at? Well, you wouldn’t be impressed. You can find a review of the major process in the book “Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger”, p.90-97 (free download at http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ) You’re most probably quoting a country variation of a statistical program – Smoking Attributed Morbidity/Mortality & Economic Cost (SAMMEC) – originated by the Centers of Disease Control in America. It is a statistical fantasy. By the way, the CDC (and many other medically-aligned groups) has long been committed to the smokefree “utopia”. It is ideologically compromised/corrupted. There are also other as-questionable ways of arriving at statistical “death tolls” and “costs”.
Just a word on statistics. The term “eugenics” was coined by the statistician Francis Galton. Statistics played a large part in the eugenics mentality. It is eugenicists of early last century (e.g., Karl Pearson) that developed population-level statistics for population control. Many of these statistics are still used by contemporary “population controllers”. Eugenicists were the originators of IQ tests and other comparative tests. They were notorious for constantly comparing groups along particular dimensions, and declaring that one group was “superior” to another. They could manufacture statistics ad nauseam as to how particular groups were a “burden”, e.g., economic, to society and that needed “correction” – which they advised. These shallow, over-interpreted comparisons served only to promote bigotry, racism, and discord. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the same shallowness and heavy reliance on flimsy statistics in contemporary Public Health producing similar dysfunction in society.
Allow me to give one example of how State-sponsored fanatics constantly change the storyline or shift the “goalposts” to advance the agenda.
There was a presentation in the 1980s (see Godber Blueprint) at one of the World Conferences on Smoking & Health concerning the “cost of smoking” to the health system. There were no studies to that point. The presenter, who was partial to antismoking, concluded that smokers were not an additional cost. He also pointed out that these sorts of studies are highly arguable in that they rely on so many questionable assumptions. Obviously, the fanatics didn’t receive this presentation too well and simply disregarded it. For decades, they have been proclaiming that smoking/smokers are a burden to the health system, even though a number of studies over that time indicated that it is not true.
Through this fraudulent claim, the fanatics convinced governments to hike tobacco taxes to “cover” the extra medical services. Governments are only too happy to oblige; it means more money in the coffers. And the fanatics always insist that they should be given a cut of the extra taxes to continue “educating” the public, keeping them in comfortable employment. In the last decade, tobacco taxes have been hiked many times into the realm of compounded extortion. So inflated are the taxes that it’s impossible to hide the charade any longer.
Consider a recent “cost analysis” appearing in an Australian government publication; bear in mind that the Australian government is rabidly antismoking. Net health costs of tobacco-use was estimated at $318,400,000 (p.51). The net revenue from tobacco sales was $6,700,000,000 (p.22). The revenue from tobacco is 21 TIMES the “extra” cost of treating smokers. This difference is obscene. Even the extent of this “extra medical cost” is arguable and there’s not even any subtraction of forgone pensions. The “21 times” is extremely conservative.
http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf
Governments and the fanatics that advised them aren’t going to come out and admit that they’ve severely overcharged smokers to the point of robbery and that the tax on tobacco should be considerably reduced. Given that the fantasy that smokers cost the health system can no longer be maintained, the fanatics do what they do regularly – they change the “argument” (storyline), i.e., shift the goalposts. NOW they argue, smokers [way] more than cover their additional health costs, but there are “other costs”. And the above report concocts around $32,000,000,000 of “other costs”, which are not actual government expenditures. There isn’t time to consider how all these “other costs” are entirely arguable. However, the absurdity of the claims attracted some rare criticism. Further, these “costs to the State” smack of a socialist framework where individuals are the property of the State, with the expectation of a particular, average “working life” able to be extracted from each individual.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/economists-challenge-healthist-view-of-smoking-alcohol-risks-20111221-1p5nl.html
Shifting the “storyline” or goalposts keeps the ideological fanatics happy (and they usually call for additional funding to help “educate” the public), Gigantic Pharma is happy because it can keep peddling and profiting from its essentially useless NRT wares. And the government is happy because it can claim that it needs to extort even more taxes from smokers. There is now a lucrative antismoker industry that did not exist 30 years ago. From part of the extortionate taxes, it is smokers that are financing a considerable portion of it: They are being forced to pay for their own persecution. It is a very sick, fraud-based, self-serving system. It can well be referred to as racketeering.
Here is a brief timeline of the antismoking madness over the last few decades, particularly in English-speaking countries.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.
On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.
This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.
The 4th link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans, check Greece and you could easily understand that the situation is a little bit strange
I agree with Ilias. People only understand rules (law) when it hurts their pockets.
I am not sure how imposing hefty fines would eventually eradicate smoking in public places.
For instance, smoking got more attention due to the ban around the EU, making people more curious about it.
The ban is surely a great leap forward towards the right direction but there are still things to be done before this debate comes to a close.
I believe that the core problem is not whether it is harmful for our health. Instead, it's a matter of respect between humans. And I will give a brief explanation. Every person is free to do anything legal as long as he or she does not disrespect his/her surrounding people. If it's my decision to smoke and I don't really care about the consequences, the person next to me might really care about such health issues. Automatically, when I smoke next to a non-smoker, I violate his/her freedom and his/her right to live healthily.
Now, let's assume the opposite situation. Let's say I am a smoker and I don't smoke at a public place due to respect to non-smokers or due to legislation. As a smoker, I might assert that my freedom is violated, because I am not free to do what I really want. However, first of all it's not the sole limitation that I experience in everyday life and, moreover, nobody is harmed because of such a behavior.
Here, I should point out that it's very important to allow some public places to have smoking sections or areas or even give special permits to some public places (up to a particular number of places) for smoking, so that the smokers' decision to smoke is respected as well. Since smokers want to smoke they have the right to do so, as long as they don't harm the people around them. I totally dislike situations where I see smokers to go outdoors to smoke under snow condition for example. That's why their choice has to be respected and public places with a special tobacco permit or air-isolated smoking sections of public places should be established up to a reasonable extent.
To conclude, my opinion is to prohibit in general smoking in indoor public places, while making sure that there are some places with special tobacco permits or special smoking sections.
I will close my comment with a brief reasoning of the above thoughts. I have many close friends who are passionate smokers and they protest aggressively against every anti-smoking legislation. However, when they are in countries or places that have stringent anti-smoking legislation or rules, they adhere to the them without protesting. That's why I really believe that it's a matter of decisiveness from the side of governments to enforce a law and not a matter of people's behavior. Of course we should take into consideration the taxes that governments earn through tobacco sales and this is usually the first reason why governments don't enforce an anti-smoking law even if it has passed through the political world (parliament etc.)
it seems to me that much of the above discussion combats "freedom from smoke" against "freedom to smoke", or negative versus positive liberty, see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
and the use of cigarette addiction as an example
http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/tobacco_warnings_2012_en.pdf
Tobacco products: Commission adopts a new set of
written health warnings
Smoking should not be allowed in public places. There is nothing so far that can convince me accepting the fact that smokers face problems with following the smoking banning in public areas. Why in another countries they have accepted that can live with this banning, but in Greece it is so difficult to follow. Just excussions for me.
I do agree with banning smoking in public places. While it might take some time and it will surely raise strong public reaction, at the beginning, it seems the only way to change people's behaviour in the long run. It is only a matter of time before people can start enjoying the benefits of being in public places free of smoke (clothes and hair do not smell, your throat does no hurt any more, etc.). Experience shows that people who did not manage to quit smoking take this opportunity to at least reduce their consumption. You have then more people who do not smoke and you enter into a virtuous circle where not smoking is seeing as something positive and encouraged by your colleagues and friends. And obviously, this is one measure to promote healthier air quality, other should accompany such as encouraging people to take transportation means that do not contaminate or industry to use less contaminating production means. This should be seen as a first step within a more global policy towards better air quality.
Of course, both smokers and non-smokers have the right to be in a bar and enjoy a drink and a cigarette or a drink and fresh air free of tabacco smoke, respectively. I believe that first of all this is a matter of cultural education. Weakness on complying to the rules on smoking prohibition in public spaces or even disrespect of people who do not smoke, are also signs or irresponsibility. First signs of this irresponsibility are obvious in the family environment. If parents who smoke in front of their children do not care about their health, this is the first sign of disrespect and a bad example to their children as well. I am for penalties on parents who smoke in front of their children either in indoor public spaces or cars. Moreover, each citizen should denounce any inappropriate behaviour regarding smoking in public spaces and the police should be vigilant and more strict in penalties of such kind.
Very interesting approach Bernard! I read it carefully and especially the positive and the negative concept of liberty (according to Berlin) raises interesting questions on both issues "freedom to smoke" and "freedom from smoke".This makes me wonder whether is right to impose a fine to parents who smoke without caring about their childrens' health or citizens denouncing people who break the rules in public spaces.What is the right thing to do, who is right, and how can be found a functional solution?
Πιστεύω πως η απαγόρευση του καπνίσματος σε δημόσιους χώρους θα έπρεπε να επιβάλλεται από τη συνείδηση των ανθρώπων και όχι από νόμους.
Smoking in public should be made illegal. Unfortunately I do not believe the ban on such behavior would make any difference. Smokers have little care for their own health, much less others. Would people who endanger their health, knowingly shortens their life and dramatically increasing the chances of illness in whatever life is left for them - care about some law?
I have been getting a lot of useful and informative material in your website.
SmokelessECigaretteReviews.com
Your blogs and every other content is so entertaining and useful It makes me come back again.
http://www.smokelessecigarettereviews.com/
I sent your articles links to all my contacts and they all adore it including me.Subtank Clearomizer
Post a Comment
Privacy Information
By posting a comment in this blog you agree to participate to the pilots of +Spaces, a European funded (FP7) research project (www.positivespaces.eu). Your data (including the public data of your profile) will be processed with the sole purpose of testing the proper functioning of the +Spaces Prototype. The consortium partner ATC, based in Greece, will be responsible for this processing. For more information we invite you to consult the condensed and/or full privacy notice.