France to ban smoking outdoors in most places to protect children
-
But seriously now. Can we speed up smoking bans? Like, everywhere?
Some European countries, including mine, has decided to raise the smoking age by 1 every year, essentially banning the next generation from smoking. Not really rapid or speeding up, but future is looking good
There was a slight problem where some people were allowed to smoke for portion of the year after birthday and before the age increase, for every year
Anything but prevent phillip morris from selling their shit huh?
-
This post did not contain any content.
LOL like here in Montreal I see people smoking right next to the "No smoking within 3 meters" or whatever sign.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I like these laws but also I want to smoke in some places. I'd love a return of places like cigar lounges and whisky bars
-
GOOD point. They shouldn't ban cigarettes until everything else bad is also banned.
There's always one. Always fucking one.
-
Yeah don't smoke near your kids. It's not that hard.
They're also making the population choose between drinking and driving.
No they're not. Do they outlaw drinking everywhere children might one day walk through.
-
No they're not. Do they outlaw drinking everywhere children might one day walk through.
Mind your ankles. The slopes around here are slippery.
-
Which actually sounds fair. Kids do not choose to be born and do not need to inhale smoke because parents are addicted to smoking
Giving people the expectation of clean air and fresh water is far too liberal of a concept these days.
-
I thought everyone in France smoked, including the kids, no?
all the more reason. what's the point of banning something if no one's doing it
-
To protect children, meanwhile the soil is filled with cancer-inducing products pumped away illegally by big chemistry plants. In belgium and netherlands we can barely eat our own produce thanks to this. When are we gonna ban them??
yeah also ban those... how does all that affect this exactly?
-
But seriously now. Can we speed up smoking bans? Like, everywhere?
Some European countries, including mine, has decided to raise the smoking age by 1 every year, essentially banning the next generation from smoking. Not really rapid or speeding up, but future is looking good
There was a slight problem where some people were allowed to smoke for portion of the year after birthday and before the age increase, for every year
What country is it? I always wanted this for mine.
-
There’s one section of benches on my town common that smells like cigarettes from all the way over on the sidewalk. Even if it’s empty. There are so many smokers that the stink won’t go away even though it’s outside. Why do they get to ruin that section of park for everyone else?
We have this one park with a small beach section. They try to rope off a s,all smoking section away from everyone else, but you can still smell it. Why do they get to ruin the public beach for everyone else?
Sometimes other people do things we dislike, c'est la vie.
-
No they're not. Do they outlaw drinking everywhere children might one day walk through.
Do you often spill drinks into the mouths of passerby’s?
The issue isn’t the substance, it’s the second hand smoke. Children are smart enough to know “this is a thing my parents do that I can’t” but no level of smart can keep the air they breath from containing smoke.
-
Giving people the expectation of clean air and fresh water is far too liberal of a concept these days.
It's always cleaner if not one is smoking around you
-
This comment section is a disaster, just as bad as reddit. Comments of no substance on the side of popular opinion get upvotes, and waves of downvotes come for anyone who disagrees even a little, and even if they do it in a reasonable way.
I’m mildly asthmatic so I don’t smoke, vape, etc. I have tried a few times and it is simply too much for my lungs to cope with. I still think banning people from smoking in public parks or on beaches is a bit much, and not doing the same with vaping seems like a strange double standard. I had a college roommate who both vaped and smoked, and the vaping bothered me more. I still put up with it.
Hopefully enforcement is reasonable - respectful smokers who deliberately try to keep their distance should be allowed to enjoy themselves, but I understand prosecuting(?) those who show no care and smoke right next to nonsmokers.
The issue with smoking is the second hand smoke. It causes cancer, among many other health issues. Vape on the other hand doesn’t really have this same concern.
They aren’t banning smoking because of nicotine, they are banning it because it causes cancer.
-
“To protect children” is a stupid reason, but banning smoking anywhere outside of your own home, or spaces expressly dedicated to it, on the other hand, is how it should always have been.
Replace “children” with “non-consenting people” and you’re getting close. Children are the most non-consenting people in society and deserve special protection accordingly.
-
This post did not contain any content.
On-and-off smoker here (mostly off)
In my experience, nicotine is great for moderating rage and resentment. It can help in bad situations and also provides a space where one can effectively shut distractions out and enter a somewhat meditative state to work on issues. It performs this task very, very well.
It is not the same as "just taking a walk" or "standing outside". Absent-mindedly smoking provides a different experience. I am envious of people who can go to the park and get the same kind of effect out of it, but for a raft of different reasons I can't reach the same experience.
I know smoking damages nearly every part of your body. I know it's addictive. I know many smokers aren't considerate of others, and blow smoke all over people downwind, in through windows and leave cigarette butts everywhere. I know wildfires start from improperly extinguished butts. I am not one of those people, and take pains to enjoy a cigarette where I will impact as few people as possible. And when my life looks up? I quit, because I don't need it anymore, and it serves no useful purpose.
Unfortunately, there seems to be less and less room in the world to create the kind of space where one can take a few minutes such as this. And that I think is the crux of the resistance here.
We keep asking for more out of everyone, and usually to no benefit for themselves. We keep making organizational decisions which result in people feeling stressed, angry, resentful, and then in turn quite deliberately fail to understand when people pick up a vice that is harming them... and then try to ban that behavior, or sanctimoniously tut away that they are somehow selfish for wanting a break from it all for five damned minutes.
There's so many different instances under which this theme plays out. I doubt this law will be enforced evenly, and it seems predictably authoritarian and counterproductive like many substance control laws. We can't stop people stuffing a bunch of plants into a pipe, or into a paper wrapping and smoking it. It's simply too easy to do, and it provides too much utility as a temporary respite from life for people to stop.
Want to solve it? Try finding ways of making life less terrible for the critical mass of people so that they won't feel a need to smoke. And even then some still will, maybe out of spite, addiction (medical/psych treatment could be offered?) or downright contrarianism; but maybe few enough that it won't matter. That's the hard, and proper, fix for this. Smoking cessation drives are quite effective, as well as reasonable limitations on where one can smoke, and I think that is a fine policy balance.
I think cigarettes, especially manufactured ones, should be available and taxed appropriately for the healthcare burden they will produce later in life. Everyone should be aware of the health considerations in no uncertain terms. I think it's appropriate to limit smoking around areas where at-risk populations live and congregate (incl. Children), and the rest really has to be allowed to work itself out in the ad-hoc grey area loosely defined as "Community", "Consideration", "Conscience" and "Respect".
The Law is too heavy handed a tool to be expected to succeed here.
Anyway, I'm sure they've already thought about all of this and discussed it at length. Just like taxing older diesel cars without considering the consequences to folks the rural south who were unable to afford new vehicles.
-
The issue with smoking is the second hand smoke. It causes cancer, among many other health issues. Vape on the other hand doesn’t really have this same concern.
They aren’t banning smoking because of nicotine, they are banning it because it causes cancer.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yes, secondhand smoke is bad. But we are talking about outdoor environments where it should usually be possible for smokers to keep their distance.
As for vaping, it hasn’t really been around long enough yet to know for sure what the health risks are regarding the secondhand aerosol exposure, but there is reason to be concerned. It is almost certainly not as bad as secondhand smoke, but there are still risks.
-
Yes, secondhand smoke is bad. But we are talking about outdoor environments where it should usually be possible for smokers to keep their distance.
As for vaping, it hasn’t really been around long enough yet to know for sure what the health risks are regarding the secondhand aerosol exposure, but there is reason to be concerned. It is almost certainly not as bad as secondhand smoke, but there are still risks.
While I agree, these laws aren’t being made because smokers keep accidentally smoking near others, it’s because a large number of smokers can’t be assed to keep their distance. The major place I notice smokers is when they are just meandering through a large crowd as if everyone around them is fine with the smoke.
-
While I agree, these laws aren’t being made because smokers keep accidentally smoking near others, it’s because a large number of smokers can’t be assed to keep their distance. The major place I notice smokers is when they are just meandering through a large crowd as if everyone around them is fine with the smoke.
I get that, but shouldn’t it be possible then to target that kind of behavior specifically rather than all smoking? Rather than banning smoking on x beach or in y park, they could ban smoking within x meters of a minor or non consenting adult. It would be more complicated but also more fair.
Ultimately I don’t know what all of the problems with that approach would be, but it would make more sense to me.
-
On-and-off smoker here (mostly off)
In my experience, nicotine is great for moderating rage and resentment. It can help in bad situations and also provides a space where one can effectively shut distractions out and enter a somewhat meditative state to work on issues. It performs this task very, very well.
It is not the same as "just taking a walk" or "standing outside". Absent-mindedly smoking provides a different experience. I am envious of people who can go to the park and get the same kind of effect out of it, but for a raft of different reasons I can't reach the same experience.
I know smoking damages nearly every part of your body. I know it's addictive. I know many smokers aren't considerate of others, and blow smoke all over people downwind, in through windows and leave cigarette butts everywhere. I know wildfires start from improperly extinguished butts. I am not one of those people, and take pains to enjoy a cigarette where I will impact as few people as possible. And when my life looks up? I quit, because I don't need it anymore, and it serves no useful purpose.
Unfortunately, there seems to be less and less room in the world to create the kind of space where one can take a few minutes such as this. And that I think is the crux of the resistance here.
We keep asking for more out of everyone, and usually to no benefit for themselves. We keep making organizational decisions which result in people feeling stressed, angry, resentful, and then in turn quite deliberately fail to understand when people pick up a vice that is harming them... and then try to ban that behavior, or sanctimoniously tut away that they are somehow selfish for wanting a break from it all for five damned minutes.
There's so many different instances under which this theme plays out. I doubt this law will be enforced evenly, and it seems predictably authoritarian and counterproductive like many substance control laws. We can't stop people stuffing a bunch of plants into a pipe, or into a paper wrapping and smoking it. It's simply too easy to do, and it provides too much utility as a temporary respite from life for people to stop.
Want to solve it? Try finding ways of making life less terrible for the critical mass of people so that they won't feel a need to smoke. And even then some still will, maybe out of spite, addiction (medical/psych treatment could be offered?) or downright contrarianism; but maybe few enough that it won't matter. That's the hard, and proper, fix for this. Smoking cessation drives are quite effective, as well as reasonable limitations on where one can smoke, and I think that is a fine policy balance.
I think cigarettes, especially manufactured ones, should be available and taxed appropriately for the healthcare burden they will produce later in life. Everyone should be aware of the health considerations in no uncertain terms. I think it's appropriate to limit smoking around areas where at-risk populations live and congregate (incl. Children), and the rest really has to be allowed to work itself out in the ad-hoc grey area loosely defined as "Community", "Consideration", "Conscience" and "Respect".
The Law is too heavy handed a tool to be expected to succeed here.
Anyway, I'm sure they've already thought about all of this and discussed it at length. Just like taxing older diesel cars without considering the consequences to folks the rural south who were unable to afford new vehicles.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The problem is that inconsiderate smokers are actively hurting the health of the people suffering from their inconsideration. Passive smoking is a thing, and it has long term consequences.
So while it sucks for the individual freedom of considerate smokers like yourself, banning public smoking protects a lot of people who get their health damaged by what is in my experience in France most of the smokers. And protection is one of the purposes of the law.
